Hacker News Reader

Comment by brobdingnagians | Hacker News Reader

To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.

View on HN

The wealthy class are, presumably, wealthy enough to pay the carbon tax and still enjoy the perks and privileges of private jets though? It's not like they're being exempted from a ban on flying private jets, but rather a tax on them. Their wealth itself was already their ticket to perks and privilege, because it lets them pay the tax.

GP is right. The real point of carbon-tax (and the heavy promotion of global warming) is not to address the underlying issue but to extract wealth from the 99.9% and redirect it to the riches. Any other occasions will be used as such: for example recently the covid was used to kill small businesses and fed the big corporations, which stock rised hugely.

How do you know this?

By knowing history and being observant.

Wealth has a tendency to manage regulations to keep said wealth. Hence tax exemptions, subsidies, etc.

I hate this kind of rhetoric. Frankly that sounds like: "A proposed solution A to problem X has another problem Y, which proves that it was never about X, and consequently I will refuse to acknowledge problem X - if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault for not being able to create a perfect solution that gets my approval."

Well, although taxes are usually effective, they affect more the low and middle classes than the rich, as they can opt to pay and enjoy life as usual. Exemption to activities that are mostly enjoyed by the rich is quite absurd.

People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.

You raise a good point, but I think one can criticize the proposed law without painting the whole endeavor as some kind of conspiracy.

Because, when you think about it, climate change will also affect the poor way more than the rich - so some unscrupulous riches do have a vested interest in keeping people cynical, because it's not they who will suffer the consequences - they can retire in some nice mansion in the Arctic.

Reminds me of https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-...

A few weeks ago the same Sanchez said that we Spaniards should eat way less meat by the year 2050. Obviously that won't apply to him.

"more about control"

Control what though?

It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair).

But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.

> It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt.

Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.

Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.

It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.

I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics.

I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.

"some are more equal" (in this case - "CO2 emitted by some is less damaging"). Classic control.

The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them that energy is bad for the environment and that they have to pay tax or buy expensive energy (renewables)

We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".

It's easy to point your finger and say that "we are in this together" when you are in a position of power.

It's hard not to when the planet is dying.

So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.

I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.

By that exact same logic, the next generation of people in every country should be allowed to use as much polluting energy as the last one, because the established generation did so and they are the developing generation.

By the same logic, the next generation of people should have access to the same intact climate as the last one.

Obviously though, you can't have both. The difference here is that rich countries are rich, and can afford to take on the extra financial burden via the very same finances that they obtained via cheap energy.

Yes it's extremely unfair that the West used up what turned out to be the planet's entire carbon budget. But it doesn't change the fact that humanity has to stop emitting carbon.

Where do you get the idea that renewables are expensive energy? Utility scale onshore wind and solar PV are the cheapest form of generation[1] by a long shot.

And because of this, 90% of the global electricity generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. There wasn't a single coal burning power plant built in the US last year, despite political support for coal - it's just too uneconomic. This isn't coercion, taxes or anything - it's simple economics and it's happening everywhere - developed and developing countries.

Using old/outdated technology doesn't fuel growth in developing countries. Just because the industrial revolution in the west was powered by coal and steam engines, doesn't mean it makes any sense for a modern developing country to start building steam engines to power a manufacturing base.

[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Lazard's analysis is bad at best, but that is a separate discussion.

The main issue is that renewables have huge upfront capital costs combined with 0 storage &transportation capabilities (cannot put your wind energy in a tank). Of course these are not issues for the West, but I don't know how you can go to an isolated Indian village and tell them that they need to spit 20k per household to install solar panels.

Combustible fuels are pay as you go. Want heat tonight? Use some wood just for tonight. Want to move your motorcycle? You need only a jug of gasoline.

What do you mean the analysis is "bad"? It's widely referenced and they explain their methodology in detail and their data sources. If there's an aspect of the methodology you think is bad, I'd be interested in hearing it. Their results are pretty much in line with other independent studies of the same thing.

I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that for a wood burning domestic stove or a small motorcycle. Isolated Indian villages are not expected to fund utility scale electricity generation? I mean you could try to argue that candles are better than solar-powered flash-lights, I guess? But I don't see the relevance.

The fact is that for utility scale electricity generation, the combination of solar PV or onshore wind with idling peaker natural gas capacity blows all the competition out of the water in terms of cost. The only thermal generation currently viable in the modern world is combined-cycle gas and even then it's unlikely to maintain touching distance in a world where wind turbines continue to fall in price by 10% a year while PV panels are falling at an even faster rate.

You just have to look at what's actually happening globally - both developed and developing world. Like I said 90% of worldwide newly installed grid scale generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. The simplest explanation for this is the one which agrees with all the analysis from various sources - it's happening because it's far cheaper.

The analysis is completely wrong for a country that is not in the West.

Their first assumption is low interest rates for business loans and availability of investment capital. Again, we take these two for granted in the West, but they are not.

Second big assumption is the existence of distribution grid and storage. The fact is that we have almost 1 Billion people off grid and by making fossil fuels more expensive to them pretty much we decide that they need to stay impoverished for many generations to come.

Regarding your comment on renewable energy added in 2020, you failed to mention that the bulk of it comes from China, where the Party has made the strategic decision to do so regardless of cost.

It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects.

I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less.

Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also.

Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim.

"It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects."

- I invite you as an investor to go to a developing country's bank and ask for a 10-million-dollar loan with <=10% interest rate to build anything. I don't know where they get these numbers (they conviniently say "Lazard estimates"). They are plain wrong.

"I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. "

- Had they had the access to cheap capital (or any capital) to build a grid they would have done so.

What you propose is for them to starve for some generations until they can build a grid. And even when they do, you will want to sell them more expensive equipment (electric cars, batteries for their grid etc).

Fossils can work without a grid, and they can already improve dramatically life and productivity to enable later public investments to infrastructure.

It is renewables that require huge initial capital investment to work without a grid. Fossils are pay as you go. You only need for example fuel oil in winter to warm your house with a couple of heaters. That is a cost of < $500 USD / year. To run two electric heaters (~10kw), you will need a big enough solar panel and battery to keep it running at night. So now you are in the tune of $20,000 USD.

* " Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim." *

- Covered already.

The consequences don't really change regardless of how you read history.

Its been the same with lockdown. Enforce totalitarian restrictions and tracking on the plebes, whilst the rich and connected routinely ignore or are excluded from the rules.

Its possible that Lockdown is a ploy to distract from the trillions of dollars of money printing that has gone on during the pandemic, to suppress the inflation generated, as well as to normalise location and biological data collection and arbitrary interference in personal liberty and private businesses.

It seems unlikely that the motivation is really the health of the populace, when deaths and ill health from air pollution and obesity, and from the interrupted medical treatments during Lockdown itself, are routinely ignored.

You can follow the same logical pattern for all the other major issues of our time. Are the massive migration inflows of violent military-age males into Europe from MENA really about humanitarian aid, or about injecting cheap labour into the continent and providing justification for giant intelligence agencies, tracking and banning of encryption?

The same for critical race theory - is the goal the betterment of humankind, or to set the working class against eachother and to distract from insane wealth capture of the 1%?

I don't understand people who think that, at hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders were secretly in meetings with robes nodding excitedly over the opportunity to oppress the masses. Or that an unknown, highly contagious respiratory disease causing hospitals to overflow with no vaccine available didn't warrant some kind of mandates against public interactions.

It boggles my mind what kind of conspiratorial, Truman-Show-like mentality people must have to find bad faith so common in life.

It is the party of those in America who were against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, or any kind of precautions who are also against any kind of regulations or limits on the causes of obesity or climate change or pollution. So your comment about "why do 'they' care about the virus but not pollution" is moot.

The governor of California was photographed holding a fundraising dinner during a phase of lockdown he put in effect.

It'd be hard to come up with a more obvious scenario.

Correct. That was wrong of him to do. However, do you think that because of that, it is impossible for the directive to limit public events was completely without justification or public health benefit? Could it be that he was a wanker, and it was a good decision?

There was no hospital overflow. I live in Ukraine and even with a totally rudimentary health system and routinely ignored lockdowns, the health system functioned like any other flu outbreak. The temporary hospitals setup in the USA and UK were never used.

If anything I am quite sure that the few lockdowns we did have worsened the spread of COVID, or at least concentrated it over a shorter timeframe, since people were now packed into shopping centres at reduced hours, were forced to socialise in smaller 'speakeasy' venues, and had a greater interaction with grandparents given the closure of schools. Without lockdowns, the virus would have spread slowly and steadily, and been concentrated in younger groups who have more social interaction with eachother, like influenza each season.

Even under a 'best case' scenario for Lockdown, and using Sweden as an example, we have spent about 50 months in Lockdown in order to save 1 month of life - statiscally for someone of advanced age and with serious existing health problems:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...

Is there a health problem in the West? Yes, and its from obesity, which is heavily correlated to negative COVID outcomes:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...

Sweden and Ukraine far below lockdown countries for deaths per capita: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...

Annual deaths in Sweden 2020 only 6% higher than 2018, and even then only after a weak 2019 flu/death season:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...

The COVID death spike in Sweden basically aligns with a once-a-decade flu variant:

https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...

So is this conspiratorial? I am using all of the available data to create this attitude.

Well, you're factually wrong that hospitals weren't at the breaking point - several in the United States were, as well as healthcare systems in Italy. The relative lack of use out of notable expansion sites was due, IMO, to mis-steps in the bureaucracy and prep, not in the lack of help that additional beds could provide.

Just flipping through your source of "50 months of quarantine", and without (yet) reading the entire article, it is citing an extrapolated number from a hypothetical, which you cite as a statement of fact. Covid has been around for 18 months. You are being misleading, or English may not be your first language.

In any case, I'm not saying certain measures or lockdowns were overkill. I believe governments and experts, in a transparent fashion, should be discussing what went wrong and right at all levels, and how we can do better, quicker, safer the next time a pandemic hits.

I strongly reject the notion that this was a massive conspiracy to test the reach of government restrictions.

Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened. I'm lucky enough to live in a country that didn't went with the lockdown madness (Japan), so I know for a fact an alternative way was possibly. It's sad to read people so brainwashed they defend the ruling class who robbed their liberties (and which didn't followed the rules themselves, as shown in France with ministers going to secret restaurants in Paris[1]).

[1] https://apnews.com/article/paris-europe-coronavirus-pandemic...

I disagree with GP's conspiracy theory, but still I can see how it could be theoretically possible. Those "hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders" they are not necessarily a part of real elite. Instead, they are brainwashed during their college years to think what they masters need them to think. And then, when the actual pandemic happens they simply do not have enough critical thinking skills to reject the official narrative. Also, it is safer for their political careers to just go with the flow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com