Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Hot take: it doesn't matter who comes out in favour of stronger action on climate change. The only way we'll get significant change is when it becomes economic to do so. The world population or even a significant percentage of it won't change their behaviour altruistically even for a minor inconvenience and risk.

New coal plants aren't built (mostly) and old ones are closing not because of altruism or a genuine concern for climate change. It's because other options are more economic, specifically LNG and solar. Now LNG isn't much better but it is better. Solar is definitely better. But what drove solar adoption over the last decade is the plunging price of panels, not altruism.

View on HN

I don’t think this is strictly true. We banned dumping of waste in the ocean even though it remains the “cheapest” way of disposing of toxic waste.

Governments can make it economic for companies and individuals to behave in more environmentally friendly ways, and will do so when enough political pressure arises (note that since we’re correcting for externalities, this is more economically efficient than letting pollution be “free”). To this end, coming out in favour of climate change action is useful.

If you think about this, this too is just an economic motive. The cost of non-compliance (fines, prosecution, etc) multiplied by the risk of that happening is less than the cost of compliance, so it happens.

People and companies break laws all the time when it's cheaper to do so.

I can't help but think of Fight Club [1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

But we can take some action to make it economic to do so.

For consumers, putting a price on carbon can make it simple and economic for them to chose greener options

And for corporations, the EU has been working on various schemes to price carbon for EU companies and to put a corresponding penalty on companies from other countries that don't (to avoid disadvantaging their companies).

> The only way we'll get significant change is when it becomes economic to do so.

I think this is the consistent empirical fact. People say and think they act in the public interest, but in reality they follow incentives.

This could in theory be fixed with Carbon Taxes, but they turn out to be politically impossible in most places.

So I think the only path is developing new technology that is cheaper and better per kWh. Solar and battery tech is coming along quite well.

> New coal plants aren't built (mostly)

China is building new coal plants at a furious pace:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal/chinas-new-coa...

"Including decommissions, China’s coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020, even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW"

> But what drove solar adoption over the last decade is the plunging price of panels

...which was heavily subsidized by the Obama administration plowing billions of taxpayer dollars into solar R&D. We could end the reliance on gasoline tomorrow by removing subsidies on ethanol and putting them into EVs, but it's politically unfeasible. Although I totally agree with you that economic change must precede any big change in energy.

Why reduce the question to economics? A significant reason why developing countries continue to rely on coal power, for example, is political: energy insecurity, state tariffs, vested interests. At the same time they expect the global North, that is responsible for the greatest share of historic emissions, and has reaped its rewards, to help them. The North's failure to do so is a political issue, not a merely economic one. We will not reach net zero by 2050 without major state investment, regulation and international cooperation.

Or electricity price raises so much people will stop using it. There is already CO2 tax, polution tax. My country even collects TV license fee from electricity.

Rebuilding grid for solar and EVs requires major overhaul. That is not happening. In EU prices are already up by 50% and grid is becoming more unstable. When Germany switches off its remaining nuclear and coal power plants, it will sky rockets.

People will build off-grid solars to avoid fees, and government will make off-grid illegal or tax it severely.

> People will build off-grid solars to avoid fees, and government will make off-grid illegal or tax it severely.

That sounds like a waking nightmare

The religious right in the US are a huge barrier to more progressive policies on a range of issues including climate

And ironically this, a clear and positive sign of that changing, is being lambasted by pot shots at unrelated other religious positions.

Christ almighty, if the fellow you're complaining about walks up to you and says "I've been thinking about that thing you've been going on about, and I'd like to help you..."

... then maybe don't slap them across the face in response.

It's never going to be economic for individual countries. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

Some say that’s why slavery ended: steam power was cheaper

Oh yeah, I remember those steam powered humanoids picking cotton in the fields.

Way to prove my point. Cotton-rich areas tried to hold on to slavery.

Areas with steam-friendly industries (Britain, Northeast USA) converted to steam and got rid of slavery.

Some say it ended because Britain got industrialized, became substantially richer, and could afford to have and enforce morals in this field.

>New coal plants aren't built

The US isn't the world.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

Reply on news.ycombinator.com