71–80 of 145 posts
You can have progress but many consequences not taken on board.
If you roll through the world,
India ...
Russia ...
China ...
Europe ...
USA ...
Canada to Argentina ...
Let us not just talk so American centric as many like climate change, totalitarian control of humanity, human gene, AI, religion ...
Some goods some bad. Some very bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by creating perverse incentives elsewhere in the economy. The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same.…
(disclaimer: I'm part of a climate&energy research group) While climate change seems like a daunting and unsolvable problem at an individual level, to be honest it is fairly easy to solve with political solutions provided you could unblock the political machinery. I used to be fairly pessimistic about this, as a researcher, but now I think it's mostly a matter of getting political interest to align at the same time.…
The idea that carbon taxes are a meaningful economic incentive seems mostly like wishful thinking- It seems obvious to me that it just introduces an additional layer of perverse incentives for lobbyists to exploit. The only meaningful "free market" solution that I can see that could work is limiting supply (but nobody want to do that because it would be painful and most people care more about doing things that feel good instead of doing things that actually work)
Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important: > In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found de…
The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c...
For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels. What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets. To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals. Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege. To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production.
Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized. We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong. I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic. Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.
I guess I'm considered a millennial, but messages like this sound like misconceived pandering. Firstly, I don't think any generation necessarily "owes" anything to future generations. But, even if we accept the premise, I am the beneficiary of absolutely mind-boggling amounts of technological advancement, culture, progress, infrastructure, science, and on and on and on even just over the course of my own lifetime (ap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada tried that with a rebate to boot at the federal level. Look at what’s happening in Alberta and Ontario.
That's a great start, but from my understanding that legislation stops at $50/ton, which is a problem. You really need it to keep ramping up to get the price discovery. It's possible that at $51/ton the problem would solve itself (e.g. someone sells a way to pull Co2 out of a flue-gas stack, which then becomes profitable and marches down the learning curve), but wouldn't occur at $50. By itself, $50/ton would make a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(disclaimer: I'm part of a climate&energy research group) While climate change seems like a daunting and unsolvable problem at an individual level, to be honest it is fairly easy to solve with political solutions provided you could unblock the political machinery. I used to be fairly pessimistic about this, as a researcher, but now I think it's mostly a matter of getting political interest to align at the same time.…
I claim no expertise on this issue, but it seems pretty obvious to me (perhaps wrongly, I'll admit) that the only reason carbon taxes are popular as a solution is PRECISELY because they don't work- i.e. they allow oil companies to continue extracting oil and sell it to people who then burn it into CO2. The idea that carbon taxes are a meaningful economic incentive seems mostly like wishful thinking- It seems obvious…
With my climate hat on (not to be confused with the environmentalist hat), I have no problem with oil companies continuing to pump out oil as long as they put the Co2 back into the ground. If they prefer to pay a $100/ton tax to pump it out over paying someone else $80/ton offset/sequester the emissions, then they'll quickly go out of business to their competitors.
But, they need an incentive to pay that $80/ton. And the companies that want to put the Co2 back underground need the $80/ton to make it profitable. Right now they have none, but if the alternative is a $100/ton tax, then you can be fairly confident that the net emissions will converge towards zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are numerous ways in which Tim Cook's generation has failed the next generation (at least in the US). * Wages are flat, * Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism), * College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got), * Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon. Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a…
Ah we found the true millenial! Boo hoo you guys haven't given us amazing wage growth in an era where we're all competing with cheap overseas labor so we can buy new homes at 25 plus Apple gadgets and endless media. And we had to pay :'( for our fancy degrees with housing included at elite schools in distant states because community college and nearby colleges aren't good enough for us...and you didn't solve all of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a great start, but from my understanding that legislation stops at $50/ton, which is a problem. You really need it to keep ramping up to get the price discovery. It's possible that at $51/ton the problem would solve itself (e.g. someone sells a way to pull Co2 out of a flue-gas stack, which then becomes profitable and marches down the learning curve), but wouldn't occur at $50. By itself, $50/ton would make a…
Well no, I meant those provinces have opposing governments which might use the notwithstanding clause or some legal gambit to overturn it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are numerous ways in which Tim Cook's generation has failed the next generation (at least in the US). * Wages are flat, * Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism), * College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got), * Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon. Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a…
Imagine previous generations that were being drafted to the army to go off to WW2, Korea, Vietnam. Ah yes but Millennials have flat wages and expensive college. We've failed them all.