Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

norway.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#201

Post by porpoisely »

rebornshellfish wrote: post #183
porpoisely wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The take away is that norway isn't doing anything but buying publicity with their little neocolonial effort. They lost nothing by this. They only gained. If norway really cared, they should stop drilling oil immediately and turn over their entire $1 trillion wealth fund over to nuclear and clean energy companies. But they'll never do that because they use their money for their own political self-interests. Neverm…

You realise that Indonesia has 15x the population of the Netherlands, right? And that Norway is tiny, literally like 2% of the population of Indonesia? Maybe if Indonesia was more careful with birth control and didn't have babies that it can't afford, it wouldn't have such a problem with poverty. Having babies is not a debt on other people.

Indonesia might has 15X more people, but it's also geographically 50X bigger than the netherlands. The netherlands is far more overpopulated than indonesia. Also indonesia's poverty is a legacy of more than a century of dutch colonization and exploitation and its inability to develop due to other considerations.

I think we are mostly agreed but you seem to have been misreading my comments. My point is let indonesia do whatever it wants with its land to develop and get itself out of poverty. Norway should mind its own business. Considering your other comment, I think we can both agree on that.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#202

Post by bjlorenzen »

Kephael wrote: post #149
vkou wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to consent. That's the whole point of tariffs. They can be imposed unilaterally (As we have recently seen with the US - China shoving contest. Which, of course, had nothing to do with the environment, or carbon emissions, and everything to do with political optics.)

If the West stops trading with China then they will invade Taiwan and Okinawa and also supply modern weapon systems to North Korea.

This is pure speculation. Meanwhile, our government is actively invading and occupying how many countries?

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#203

Post by reaperducer »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #193
reaperducer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. But as I stated, there were exactly zero choices other than Made in China when I searched. And I did a very thorough search.

Dualit Classic. A very expensive toaster that's been made by hand, for ages, in the UK. Repairable too! https://www.dualit.com/products/classic

Ossim. When I live in the UK I'll pick one up. Until then, the point stands: Made in China is all that is available to me.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#204

Post by rasz »

wil421 wrote: post #33
duopixel wrote: post #16

When I first moved to Europe I was struck by just how domesticated the land is. I can sleep in the open without being afraid of snakes, scorpions, spiders, wolves or bears. Even when land is "wild", the larger mammals will be rabbits, deer, wild goats and such. Excepting natural parks, hunters are the only predators. At least in Spain, a tremendous percentage of land is put at the service of mankind. The dehesas give…

The Europeans killed off most large animals like Aurochs and Bison, and a few predators including Tigers, Lions. They also killed off most of the forests. When I was in southern Germany I did notice how cultivated the land was. There were a few patches of trees but they didn’t look like old growth forests. Even the hills were cultivated into farmland. Costa Rica is a good example of developing a country who wants to…

Germany today: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/01/german-mini...

They agreed to merely postpone it for a year https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-lignite-hambach/germa...

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#205

Post by empath75 »

tomp wrote: post #94
deegles wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of existing methods that become economically viable if CO2 is priced properly.

I'm not interested in economic viability, but energy viability. Given that we get most of our energy by creating CO2, it doesn't make sense to use some of that energy to remove some of that CO2. The only option is rapid expansion of nuclear and/or solar, but at latter will take a while and the former isn't very popular.

It would effectively be a tax on energy.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#206

Post by lutorm »

deegles wrote: post #112
tomp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in economic viability, but energy viability. Given that we get most of our energy by creating CO2, it doesn't make sense to use some of that energy to remove some of that CO2. The only option is rapid expansion of nuclear and/or solar, but at latter will take a while and the former isn't very popular.

> it doesn't make sense to use some of that energy to remove some of that CO2. Of course it does, if the price of CO2 is high enough. If I can capture 1.1 unit of CO2 per unit of CO2 released and it still makes me money, I'll use any energy available. This could happen if e.g. the government subsidizes carbon capture credits or simply if an efficient enough process exists. On top of that, if the price is high enough…

It doesn't matter how high the price on CO2 is if you can't capture 1 unit of CO2 without emitting >1 unit. There's no guarantee that such a technology exists.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#207

Post by EGreg »

SVResponsible wrote: post #178
EGreg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t just need a carbon tax. We need the public to support it unlike the French public. So we need to redistribute the carbon tax as UBI. So people say “more carbon tax please!” Climate Justice. Contact Andrew Yang who is running for President and tell him his UBI needs to be funded with a carbon tax!

UBI just makes landlords richer. Why not have the country simply pick up the carbon tax for individuals?

What does that even mean? Go into depth on both of your points.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#209

Post by BurningFrog »

vkou wrote: post #142
BurningFrog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think China would consent to being taxed like that.

They don't have to consent. That's the whole point of tariffs. They can be imposed unilaterally (As we have recently seen with the US - China shoving contest. Which, of course, had nothing to do with the environment, or carbon emissions, and everything to do with political optics.)

The US can impose tariffs on trade with the US.

If they wanted to impose it on China's oil trade with Saudi or Russia, it would have to be done militarily.

And that still leaves the question how to impose a carbon tax on China's domestic coal and oil.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#210

Post by BurningFrog »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #137
BurningFrog wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pragmatic take is that if we keep buying their stuff - and we will - they will soon become rich enough to clean up their environment, just like all rich countries do. If you're familiar with the history of industrialism, all currently clean and rich countries went through a phase of horrible dirtiness as they rose out of awful poverty. Fortunately, China seems to go through the same steps as the west 3-5 times fas…

You think the environment will continue to be relatively hospitable to humans while we go "through" China, then India, then Africa/South America?

China is already halfway through. India isn't too far behind. The rest of the world is comparatively small.

So, yeah, I think we have pretty big margins, TBH.

Just my personal hunch. I don't ask you to agree.

Post reply on HN