Hacker News Reader

Comment by PatientTrades | Hacker News Reader

> It is urgent that we follow the Paris agreement and switch rapidly away from fossil fuels

I think everyone, even skeptics deep down agree that climate change is real. However, giving billions, if not trillions of dollars to an international climate fund run by who the hell knows is definitely not the correct approach. Businesses and people need short term incentives to switch, not just mandates. Until scientists further develop not only cheaper, but more convenient and efficient energy solutions, fossil fuels will continue to be used.

View on HN

Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They do need resources to do their work. As long as they don't get them and research funding keeps getting slashed, the scientists cannot do much. They are already trying their best with the available resources.

Climate change can only be solved by political means. Hoping someone will make a breakthrough that will make the problem go away is not realistic.

If surviving as a species isn't enough of an incentive I'm not sure that the government can promise much.

At this point, I think we just need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies. If we just made people pay for the actual costs of such fuels, rather than letting them pollute for free, renewables would wipe the floor with them.

What subsidies? For every £1 you spend on petrol in the UK 80p is tax. If we paid the actual cost people would drive gas guzzlers 'cos why not.

> What subsidies?

Getting to dump waste products into the atmosphere for free. That 80p is nowhere near the true cost of that.

Yes, exactly. People don’t pay for the consequences of the pollution they generate. If they did, fossil fuels would be much less popular.

The problem is that the options being presented politically are

a) Support the international movement to fight climate change, or

b) Do nothing

> Until scientists further develop not only cheaper, but more convenient and efficient energy solutions, fossil fuels will continue to be used.

That is utter cowardice. Imagine if WW2 had happened and the USA had stayed out saying "we're not participating until scientists invent ray-guns".

There are conservative, anti-globalist options to fighting climate change.

Carbon taxes encourage the market to develop solutions, and could be done in a revenue-neutral fashion which would mean it's a tax cut for green citizens. Tariff countries with bad climate records and encourage trade with countries that are doing their part to fight climate change. Block expansion of the coal industry. None of these would be contrary to conservative, market-oriented values. None of these require funnelling billions into international climate funds.

But instead, the North American right is keeping their heads firmly planted in the sand.

> That is utter cowardice.

No, that's reality (i.e. economics). I don't think he was saying that he will do anything in his power to stand against solar/wind and promote fossil. Rather that the market will.

Either regulation, which kills innovation, or market efficiency will solve the problem.

So the rich people who care about the environment just need to pump R&D money into renewables. Or dare I say it, NUCLEAR.

> market efficiency will solve the problem.

This won't happen without stronger carbon-pricing. Right now there isn't enough incentive to really push for large-scale innovation. Electric cars are a very small market segment and primarily serve buyers who are buying against their own economic interests for the greater good.

My point exactly. Unless the incentives align the market will do what is most efficient.

Deregulation and standardization of nuclear in the U.S. will go a long way.

Deregulation won't help, and I'm not sure what you mean by standardization?

Nuclear is promising but it is just too costly and complicated to build new plants when solar and wind and plummeting in price. Subsidizing could help.

Solar cost is plateauing.

Safety regulations are insane. As in 5x what is actually reasonable. I.e. deregulation.

And standardization, as in make all the plant designs the same instead of designing them all from scratch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com