Put those donations into GND activism — it’s a political problem.
If the US government is/was capable of succeeding with the Manhattan and Apollo projects, there's no reason to believe that the same wouldn't be true of similar gargantuan efforts today.
I'm not saying that the US can solve AGCC by itself, but I am saying that uncoordinated efforts by loosely coupled private entities cannot.
We all know that an anecdote is not data, but being so dismissive towards someone with specific industry knowledge seems inappropriate.
2) since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here?
Since they're using their credentials to try and lend credulity to their argument. Specifically, it's an "appeal to [their] authority" on the subject, but they don't have that requisite 'authority'.
But honestly how well is this really working without governments? We're running out of time by certain metrics.
Second, you have a profit motive to rewrite this narrative and position private tech investors as the key innovation enablers. This happens all the time. The reality is the VC industry cherry picks the fruit that DARPA and related agencies invest in or sustain through government procurement. It takes billions over decades of failures to produce something that can be brought to market, and it’s done at taxpayer expense. The profits are privatized.
I say it is irresponsible in this case because we are literally facing the doom of our planet. This is not time to screw around with easily disproven self-aggrandizing Liberterian narratives that would detract from the political activism we need to solve this problem. We must understand how our system really works if we hope to save ourselves.
[1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrel-darpa-both...
I'd argue that the most effective solution is a carbon tax, applied on any carbon which leaves the ground. That would create incredibly strong market conditions for energy saving technologies, and provide a big cost advantage to renewable energy.
We know that pricing effects consumer behaviour. The oil price increases of the 70s and late 2000s reduced miles driven and changed car buying behaviour.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=b...
When the right conditions in the market exist, the rate of development will be so much faster than any inefficient direct investment program every will.
You mean like this?
https://unherd.com/2018/06/government-agency-made-silicon-va...
We need a clean bill that only reduces or outright zeros net carbon output, including carbon generated from imports and exports.
It's no good if we just export pollution somewhere else.
The Green New Deal is not that bill.
It is packed with a massive pile of changes to healthcare, finance, and labor laws which are totally unrelated to addressing carbon emissions. Not to mention the call for Venezuela-style nationalization.
That's a non-starter, and rightly so.
If you can't put aside power-grabs and partisan politics to tackle climate change, then you clearly do not care about fixing climate change.
If the GND passes, the important-to-humans part (carbon) will go to the back of the political bus, and the important-to-the-oligarchs part (more power! more money!) will be put in the drivers' seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
It failed. We have to approach this as a complex sociopolitical problem and it will likely require some broader changes to our 200 plus year old economic system.
(And did you say you think GND calls for more power to oligarchs? That’s a weird take.)
> "The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist,[64] grassroots[65] protest movement for economic justice[66]"
The goals listed for the movement, also from that article:
> Increase in the French minimum wage[37], End to austerity measures[38], Improved standard of living[38], Government transparency and accountability[38], Improved government services for rural areas[38], and Constitutional proposal for Citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[39]
The words "climate change" appear once in the entire article.
Looks to me like climate change was told to sit at the back of the political bus.
More detail (linked from the Wikipedia article): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/16/gilet-jaunes-y...
Because the US alone is the 2nd biggest contributor to carbon emissions in the world, and probably the only country that can make China (the 1st carbon emitter) cut theirs.
Maybe the specifics of the Green New Deal are getting lost in translation here? The package isn't just about climate change; like its namesake, the Green New Deal includes provisions about labor rights, education, healthcare, etc. Not everyone who wants to address climate change will necessarily agree with the Green New Deal proponents on those other problems. (And that glosses over a lot of disagreement even on climate change - for example, the Green New Deal doesn't include nuclear power which many people feel is essential.)
Interesting. So it is the IPv6 of climate policies.
For the past couple decades Silicon Valley has sort of gotten away with marketing this idea of the private entrepreneur ushering forth technological change and erased the absolutely foundational role of federal funding. Because if you recognize the role of the taxpayer then maybe people start questioning whether all the profits should be privatized. That’s an existential threat. What you’re seeing here is not apolitical — it is an attempt to offer a private enterprise answer to the GND. Because you’re right, the GND recognizes that you can’t fix climate without also fixing broader social and economic issues that got us here. You can’t just tax gas without uplifting working class people that would be devastated by it. More people will realize the role the govt plays in tech and that it’s not just Elon Musks (who actually specializes in bringing fed funded tech to market like space flight and autonomous vehicles). The GND would actually provide a lot of opportunities for private enterprise but it would undoubtably diminish some of the SV VC community mythology.
GND is not the only way to address it, but it definitely seems like the most politically palatable option right now inside the US. In terms of options that will have an actual impact and are also legislatively achievable, GND seems to be it. It also doesn't really "address" it so much as slow it.
Other countries HAVE already passed legislation and have taken substantive action, so they would not need to pass a GND. Though the ones that haven't passed anything would need to figure out what they can do that is palatable, yes. The US hasn't, and lately has been rolling back rules and regulations such that we're moving in the opposite direction.
Its past time for the old, rotten way of thinking to be plowed under.
(Younger generations eco-friendly? That must be a joke. My parents do even unplug devices at night to save energy.)
Unfortunately we can't wait for the coal industry or the rich to die, they reproduce themselves.
“the tone of the book is urgent and pragmatic. It's also refreshingly optimistic and future-oriented, filled with specific ideas.... Their portrait of a planet transformed by the [Green New Deal] is designed to spark that effort."
And "its optimism is inspiring....The authors’ battle-ready tone on this score breaks with the often moralistic and soul-searching mode of some of the higher-profile climate books of the last few years."
I know a child who's afraid of climate change. Not in a political way but afraid of drowning in high sea water or her house being destroyed by the weather or something like that. Her grandmother reassured her that it's all blown out of proportion and people will manage to cope just fine. Who's right - old or young? Don't pretend you know the answer because you don't. Nobody does.
You seem threatened by pessimism. I see it as a tool.