Hacker News Reader

Comment by okreallywtf | Hacker News Reader

This is a perfect example of how the economics of climate change and energy are totally messed up.

These kinds of problems are not factored into the economics of energy so coal and oil will remain economically viable without getting any kind of penalty.

Governments will attempt to tackle these issues (too late most likely) and it will be largely public funds that go towards restoration but oil and gas and coal companies will pocket all the profits and contribute little to the repercussions.

If we factored in the total costs of our energy sources renewable would be even more attractive. Given the fact that the energy companies have known about climate change for decades [1], at what point is it expected that they use some of the incredible profits made at the planets expense to mitigate those costs? It is adding insult to injury that these companies are able to avoid a lot of taxes [2] that would at least contribute to public funds being used to combat climate change. That isn't even counting the millions (billions?) that have been spent on misinformation.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-g...

View on HN

Classic tragedy of the commons. Prices for fossil fuels don't account for the negative externalities, the costs of which are borne by all life on Earth and heavily biased to weigh on future generations. The people in the future that don't consume any fossil fuels will pay the heaviest price for their ancestors' carelessness. One could fix this quite easily just by taxing fossil fuels enough to factor into the negative externalities - except you'd have to legislate that, equally, in every country on Earth (or at least the G20.) But the temptation is for nation-states to cheat and advantage their own economies over the others by not passing that kind of legislation, Trump-style. I don't think it will ever happen, it's all quite sad and future generations will rightfully curse our short-sightedness.

If you leave it to just the G20 then you will end up moving energy production to the non-member states and sell energy at a higher cost to boot. That's rather a non-starter.

We could tax use of fossil fuels. That means direct consumption, if you drive a car, or indirect if you buy products shipped on fuel hungry ships, or strawberries flown in from half way around the world, and not least electricity from a gas fired power station wherever it is situated. Since we in the G20 consume most of the energy and goods, then we would be paying the most penalty for this.

We would have to trust that our governments actually did something with the money though, not just put it in with general revenue and let the future deal with the problems it was supposed to be paying for.

A border adjustment tax accounting for the CO2 used in production abroad would balance out this problem.

then the state you buy from will a have great incentive to cheat in their co2 report, and states out of g20 are renowed for their ethics.

The enormous profits made at the expense of our biosphere's stability is the very height of injustice. Unfortunately that will never be remedied; the misinformation campaign has been incredibly effective.

I read the National Review from time to time for a conservative perspective on the news. Most of the time I enjoy it even when I disagree because it's usually thoughtful and well written, but their climate change pieces are abysmal and infuriating. We will do nothing substantial about climate change until it is far too late to actually prevent disaster.

> Unfortunately that will never be remedied

Not with that attitude :-P

Actually, climate change action does have support on the Right, e.g., in the Republican Climate Resolution. I don't believe we're at the political tipping point, but getting there is possible, the same way we did with tobacco and chemical pollutants. Who can say what is needed to get there: unfortunately misinformation campaigns are better funded than pro climate action campaigns.

>"unfortunately misinformation campaigns are better funded than pro climate action campaigns."

I can't attest as to who is better funded. But the "pro-climate" camp has cornered the market on childhood indoctrination. You know, the whole "green" movement, "save the planet", "extinct species", "pollution", "recycling", etc. It's all neatly packaged and pawned off in classrooms and children's cartoons. You would think then that as adults we'd stick with that; yet there are people out there that have had to go back on everything they've been taught in order to get into the anti-climate-change camp.

You seem to throw everything associated with the green movement into the same lump of bad things (judging from the tone of your comment). What could be so bad about recycling that you dislike the idea? Is there a logical explanation or maybe it's based on religious beliefs? I'm genuinely curious.

I wasn't trying to portray those items as bad. The thing that is bad is when those things are pushed on children. They're the least likely to question things told to them by authority figures such as teachers.

Then again, I probably have a very narrow view of what should be taught to children by educators. Simple facts and techniques, that's all. Otherwise, the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.

You include several things in the list of questionable, politicized content that are cold, hard facts. The amount of pollution produced, the effects of this pollution and the rate of extinction of species are not liberal propaganda. The scientific community is in agreement that we are in the anthropocene, or in other words that humans are having such a massive effect on the environment that this geological era is dominated by our influence over that of any other single factor.

In the context of what is being taught in schools and how our education currently exists, there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution.

This is not a matter of pushing politics.

> the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.

One of these things is not like the other. It does however explain your bizarre mindset that teaching basic facts of ecology is some kind of politicization of children. I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet.

>"there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics."

Sure, teaching ecological principles as facts and history, yes. I would agree with your wholeheartedly there. But that is not how it's presented in the classrooms of younger-grades. It is loaded with guilt and fear, along with suggestions/instructions about what must be done. At least in the case of global-warming, desertification, deforestation, pollution, ozone-layer depletion, etc. It's the ever-present boogey-man of society's bad choices. That's not teaching. Perhaps young children are simply not ready to hear some of these things, and know of the possibly impending disasters that humanity as a whole is causing. Almost entirely out of the child's control.

>"I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet."

Just as much as the parents, I would argue. They want what's best for their children. Still, doesn't mean you need to burden the children with thoughts/worries of such things.

I whole-heartedly disagree with your conclusion and tone, but am up voting because it is an interesting question I've wondered about. At what point did these people say "screw everything I was taught, I'm going to spread disinformation and promote harmful policies to make some $$$"? While we've made lots of progress on the hard science aspects of preservation, I think the social science aspect is woefully behind

What's your position on the the ocean, like coral reefs, acidification and so on? Do you think it is all leftist propoaganda?

Coral reefs, specifically? I personally don't care about them or have any feelings for their well-being. It would be unfortunate if my children don't get to see them, yes. Then again, that assumes they would want to, and pictures wouldn't suffice.

I think the problem being created/presented is state-promoting and reinforcing propaganda, rather than a left/right one. I.e. a problem that conveniently has only one easy & short-term solution: more state intervention/legislation.

Now, if it comes to the general well-being and usefulness of an immense natural resource such as the ocean? I think humanity deserves what they're causing & not-preventing. They put it simultaneously in the hands of everyone and no-one in the form of "public property", then complain when the problem of pollution is unfixable because of state-governments not implementing enough legislation and enforcement.

Yeah, if Republicans lead by Trump passed some plan where carbon was taxed, and some of the money was used to offset the increased fuel cost for the poor/middle classes, whereas rich folks were thrown a bone with tax cuts, that would be phenomenal. I would be very, very happy with that decision, enough so to feel happy with the Trump administration in spite of everything else.

Chance of this happening, IMO: 0%

As I said in another comment a long time ago and thus sparking an argument with a conservative commentator: this has become a political issue where the majority of people do not understand it. Laypersons are arguing with scientists. There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts, and until that is pierced it doesn't matter how urgent the warnings or how win-win the proposals. In the mainstream conservative view, this is firmly in the realm of hysterical, liberal bullshit and does not merit further negotiation. I mean, people actually argue that "the climate is always changing" as though that in any way counters what scientists are saying - fucking asinine.

It breaks my heart that we're going to play chicken with the habitability of our planet just as I'm preparing to bring children into the world.

> There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts

I think it's important to acknowledge some role of the Left in alienating the Right in their framing of climate change: Greedy, evil corporations are polluting the environment, and the solution is massive public spending or restructuring of society. Of course I'm exaggerating.

To me the most important questions are: How has science communication failed to convince the public of the danger, and what can be done memetically to counter corporate misinformation campaigns?

But the companies when they make those incredible profits, aren't thinking about the planet. They are thinking about their great business skill and acumen and patting themselves on the back for it. The last thing they would think of is some reason that their success isn't due solely to that.

Additionally, each one person in these companies probably optimizes for their role in particular. A tragedy of the commons affect takes place and the company as a while is misguided and immoral even if the people themselves are not.

How can you avoid problems like this? legislation?

> immoral

They're playing the game to the best of their abilities by the rules set by the government. It's most convenient to think about this game-theoretically: assume companies will always optimize their profit, and then adjust public policy until unilateral economic self-interest aligns with the public / environmental good.

Illegal != Immoral

Not that you said otherwise.

You must recall that a normal player aims to win. The truly unstoppable player cheats.

"rules set by the government" - you mean rules lobbied/bought by the companies?

Many energy companies (e.g. Exxon Mobil) have already invested in green technology, so industry push-back on climate regulation is not universal. Also representatives are democratically elected, so industry doesn't have total control over the political process.

That said it's true that corporations have political clout through lobbying and media campaigns. Some of this is necessary to negotiate regulations with governments. In my opinion a more efficient system / more pure democracy would come by having democratically elected leaders evaluate the positive and negative externalities of various activities independently of industry, and then taxing to internalize these costs.

This is how economic arguments are messed up in general. The economic argument is messed up because cash is not fungible with everything. $1 Trillion won't replace all the coral reefs and Apple can't replace a quarter of them with its cash on hand.

The economic argument is messed up because $1 Trillion is not that much money. It's one years GDP for Australia or Mexico (or less if purchase power parity is considered). It's a quarter of the annual Federal budget of the United States. It's the annual revenue of Exxon-Mobile.

In other words, some people will look at $1 trillion and be grossly unimpressed in an Austin Powers/Dr. Evil sort of way. And they'll miss the point of non-fungibility between money and ecological systems...there's no undeading the coral reefs with cash.

i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit from this state of affairs too.

What are consumers supposed to do? In many places there is no choice; you get the power the single utility company around provides you. It comes from wherever it comes from. Generating your own is not economically feasible for most.

if consumers live in a democratic country they need to demand policy change to regulate this.

some people frame climate change as an "emergency". politically, it is only an emergency if enough people think it is an emergency and are prepared to vote along these lines. i'd agree it is an emergency. but i don't think a majority of people do - so politically, it isn't an emergency.

That's fair, and a good point.

It's politically not an emergency because companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo have invested heavily in disinformation campaigns, basically dominating less-educated citizens through information manipulation via "trusted" news sources, defeating the ideals of the democratic process.

Saying people benefit from the status quo of energy is like saying mammals benefit from the status quo of needing oxygen. You don't blame individual mammals for needing oxygen and having no other choice. Especially when other extremely wealthy, organized, and networked mammals are actively working to make sure that that's always the way it's going to be, that status quo being their bread and butter for dominance.

You seem to be pointing out what you perceive to be a solution, the political process. Others are saying that that's not a path because it's too much to expect dumb humans (humans in groups of disparate communities, professions, race, religion, etc etc) to be that smart and organized, especially with the adversarial human forces involved.

In other words, what point are you trying to make by pointing out that the consumers are benefiting from the arrangement. It's very clear that they are not benefiting, they are only barely getting by, while these companies are drowning in wealth.

Here's the solution for two states. I have no information on the other 48 states but presumably some mixture of legislation and taxes and letter writing will take care of it. Generally speaking the heartland is culturally, socially, and technologically ahead of the flyover coasts (which is why they scream so loud about anecdotes to the contrary, LOL) but someday things like this will come to even the backwards coastie states...

https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm

The marketing "Other" is not unicorn droppings or whatever, its nuclear. I think nuclear is cool but their marketing firm thinks otherwise so its called "other".

Because the only thing better than one standard, is two standards, in addition to signing up for renewables at your power company, there is a new option which I haven't tried where you sign up at arcadiapower and I think they pay your bill for you and you pay them a bit more and they sell 100% wind power to your local power co along with paying your bill. I would imagine this is greased with some tax credits but this is pure speculation. The extra cost or surcharge of 100% wind provided power in Wisconsin at this time is an extra 1.5 cents per KWh (a bit more than 10% extra).

My parents did energy for tomorrow since honestly I donno when, probably the 90s. I have no personal experience with the Arcadia power alternative. I know E4T does commercial power accounts because every vaguely progressive signally retailer or office has their poster up proudly celebrating 100% powered by renewables, its not unusual.

I do have a lot of money invested in energy stocks, I'm honest about that. I believe everything about to be factually correct and unimpacted by my investments, however.

Some utilities have started to offer programs where you can pay extra to purchase 100% renewable energy instead of whatever mix you would otherwise be getting. In areas where that isn't offered, you can still buy carbon offset credits.

That assumes that consumers have an active purchasing power in how their energy is produced. How as a consumer do you switch the source of your energy? You could maybe move to a cleaner energy state, but even then the grid is highly intertwined and the differences may not be worth the expense and carbon output of the move itself.

You could also protest/campaign/write-letters to your states public utilities boards and maybe make a small difference... but the states are incentivized to keep energy cheap for its citizens, first and foremost. They also have to listen to the various lobbies of the various energy producers.

You might, if you own your own home and have enough income and the right sort of roof and a home-owners association that allows (because some consider them ugly or anti-historic preservation and ban them), install solar panels on your home.

As an individual consumer there are many ways to control your personal carbon footprint (drive less/use less gas, eat less meat especially beef), but consumers don't have a choice for which energy they consume.

If you are arguing that consumers use less energy: the average household is more efficient than it has ever been... and any individual household is still a drop in the overall energy bucket compared commercial and industrial usage. (The energy expenditure of the average office building far exceeds the average home. Imagine if we could all work from home...)

consumers still benefit from the status quo (in the short term, at least) -- this is separate from the question of if they have the option or ability to change the status quo.

The status quo is to advertise to consumers in PSAs that they have some sort of power to greatly control their own impact on the environment, despite statistically no actual power on that front.

While my liberal guilt has me constantly evaluating my own carbon footprint and side-eyeing my neighbors and their SUVs, I also know that as much as I want to be a part of the solution as a consumer, at the end of the day it is corporations, industries, and maybe even the entire system of capitalism that needs to be help culpable for climate change.

Blaming consumers for climate change, statistically, is about like blaming the shape of a hill on the ants and the distribution of their ant hills. It's a bit backwards, and it very much avoids any interest in dealing with real solutions.

In the UK at least, you can buy electricity from different suppliers though it all comes through the national grid and there is no difference between the electrons of course. The supplier you buy from is responsible for generating enough capacity to offset the needs of their customers (I presume there is some kind of acceptable fudge factor to take up the slack on occasion)

This is true in the US sometimes, but it varies wildly by state (and sometimes even city).

In places where you do have the option there are companies that very aggressively market w/ door-to-door salespeople to attempt to get consumers to lock in a static rate over X sum of years. Which, as far as I can tell... generally confuses/scares consumers so they don't even consider switching suppliers at all.

In New York State we can choose our power supplier. The green providers are a bit more expensive. They remain niche players [1]. Consumers certainly express a preference for cheap energy.

[1] http://world.350.org/nyc/350-nyc-wind-power/

I don't understand how they get to $1t in costs. And won't tourists find other places to visit and workers find other places to work?

I think this is their source [1]. Well, sure. If you burn your house down, you can of course find someplace else to live. But, you know, it's kind of a hassle. Easier to not burn it down in the first place.

[1] http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/789/files/origi...

The WWF is the NRA of environmental groups...

> at what point is it expected that they use some of those profits made at the planet'*s expense

Expected? None at all. People will argue that that's not the place of companies nor the regulations imposed upon them, and they'll win that argument because they are fundamentally correct.

The lesson to be learned here is that relying on a corporatocracy to save you and "patching it" with regulations (or etc) every time something comes up will not work.

In such a system, companies will separate themselves one way or another from regulations that try and bring 'the bottom line' in line with some non-capitaist ideal. There's always some way to do so to increase "the bottom line." (And no, private companies won't save you either, because it's basically relying on a benevolent dictatorship or parliament you have no way of knowing will remain with the same ideals long-term.)

> These kinds of problems are not factored into the economics of energy

Do you believe internalizing these costs into the price of energy is sufficient to reach a sustainable equilibrium between the environment and the economy?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but if our existence has to be economically viable (ie, we have to work within the construct of our artificial economy and if survival isn't profitable enough then too bad) then we need to do whatever we can to make the system work.

If the cost of fossil-fuel based energy are artificially low because they don't take environmental damage into account, we have to adjust it and that adjustment might make fossil-fuel based energy more costly than renewable sources.

Alternatively if we tax fossil fuel energy highly, we can use those revenues to combat the problems as well.

Agreed, I'm asking out of curiosity as I'm unfamiliar with the economics. Let's say a board of scientists creates a environmental cost curve for various levels of CO2: C(T) represents the marginal cost of emitting one ton/day of CO2 when T tons/day of CO2 are currently emitted. If we apply a CO2 tax of amount C(T), then CO2 emissions will decrease to account for the higher marginal cost of production. The question is: Will this new production level be environmentally sustainable?

I can't answer that for sure and I'm not sure anyone can which is what makes this problem difficult. We have projections about what CO2 levels need to be by a given year to hopefully avoid a 2 degree increase, but when you are dealing with potential global catastrophe it seems crazy to debate minute details and if we try to just do the bare minimum we might still have catastrophe because our estimates were not on the money.

The earlier we start the less drastic our measures have to be. Unfortunately aside from pure market forces you can just about write off the USA for the next 4 years (in fact, maybe assume that we are a hostile actor as far as climate change is concerned) which means in 4 years we may not even have as many options and measures will get increasingly drastic (ie, potential energy limits on actual consumers).

> so coal and oil will remain economically viable without getting any kind of penalty

I think oil in Norway is taxed at something like 80%. Not for environmental reasons, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com