Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ars

> When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe?

Never.

You want this changed? Figure out other energy sources. Nothing else will work.

The reason is that every individual has basically zero effect. So no one is motivated to make any changes.

> Everything else aside no President should be able to deny reality.

The President is irrelevant. He has very little on-the-ground effect. Maybe some media noise, which maybe might influence some. That's about it.

Either other energy sources are cheaper, or they are not. And that's about it.

A CO2 tax can't work unless it was implemented globally INCLUDING developing countries. (Which is a non-starter of course.) Because otherwise people will just ship industry and manufacturing elsewhere.

So there isn't much the president can do. I guess some subsidies, but there's a limit to how much of that you can do before they cause more harm than good.

View on HN

The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics.

The success of Europe in reducing emissions shows that even unilateral solutions have important impact, and they do not mean deindustrialization. Carbon taxes work exceptionally well.

The developing world is surprisingly dependent on the west, because that's where their carbon embodying products are sold. They need leadership and soft pressure.

The thing that's missing is a united front of developed nations, and the most important piece of that is the US, that's to busy devolving into the middle ages.

> The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics.

It actually shows exactly the opposite: That it only works when technological solutions exist. If there had been no effective replacement for CFC's, we'd still be using them now.

The replacements were technically and economically inferior. Just like carbon neutral sources of energy. And the phase-out stimulated research for viable substitutes.

It's a vicious/virtuous circle, we aren't hostages of an implacable march of science, we are in the driver's seat. If we want to go to the Moon, we go there, and if we decide it's not worth it, the Moon tech does not magically get better over time.

So "we don't have the technology alternative" is just code word for "let's do nothing"; if better energy sources were magically available, the economics would simply work by itself and the problem of global warming would disappear.

(That's not to say anything politicians think up is possible, but that political and scientific forces go hand in hand in such endeavors)

> A CO2 tax can't work unless it was implemented globally INCLUDING developing countries. (Which is a non-starter of course.) Because otherwise people will just ship industry and manufacturing elsewhere.

Manufacturing only accounts for 20% of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

> Figure out other energy sources. Nothing else will work.

Stop eating beef. that is something you can do today.

Hi, I read yr comments on vertical farming last month. I'd like to hear about yr project/interest in the Do region. Send me a dm or tweet if you like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com