Hacker News Reader

Or -- hear me out on this one -- we could ban wind energy, raise costs for electric vehicles, and use government resources to promote increased use of coal and oil.

That would have a bunch of advantages such as sounding familiar to leaders whose heyday was in the 1970s, of not making us feel bad about the state of the world, and occasionally giving financial kickbacks to government leaders.

Or... if you don't like this approach, maybe making changes in political leadership is the single most important thing to do.

> That would have a bunch of advantages such as sounding familiar to leaders whose heyday was in the 1970s, of not making us feel bad about the state of the world, and occasionally giving financial kickbacks to government leaders.

Besides 'kickbacks' I don't think those reasons have much to do with it. The policy benefits the fossil fuel industries' investors / owners, and follows the rent-seeking, anti-free market theory and practice of many current capitalists (specifically, that's not about capitalism but a current powerful group of capitalists). Those capitalists strongly influence government.

The other effects you mention persuade the public.

EDIT: We might ask, if the above theory is true, why the same rent-seeking capitalists do use that strategy for renewable energy? Maybe those industries, dominated by many non-American companies, are hard to monopolize? But I'm wandering far into speculation.

Texas, with their evil leadership, generates significantly more solar and wind energy than California, and has significantly more energy storage.

So maybe just blaming this on a political viewpoint you don't like doesn't actually help anything?

https://www.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1t5ud20/texas_vs_ca...

I feel like you're not actually engaging with GP's point, Jonathan Swift.

Their point is that unpopular climate policies are exactly what is pushing the general populace towards this sort of regressive climate policy you're describing. "Maybe we should make a change in political leadership" is not a productive contribution when the current leadership is the result of bad policy messaging. GP isn't opposing leadership change, they're explaining how to move towards it.

(As much as I'd like to believe that people will just gain an educated understanding of the issues and choose correctly, the unfortunate fact is that real-world politics doesn't work like that, and has to contend with the fact that populism is what wins elections)

> give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families

There's no need to caveat benefits like this by income - the most popular social programs are almost always universal. Also the added bureaucracy of validating that someone lands in a category isn't worth the overhead. Why wouldn't we want everyone to install more solar panels and two way heat pumps?

First off. Richer people tend to have larger houses, so use more energy. In the UK the grants are such that for me in a smaller house. A heat pump is the same price as a replacement boiler. You could up the grant amount but unless you're going to have a regressive policy of giving more to the rich you aren't going to give the rich all the heat pump and solar they need/can install.

Personally rather than giving someone benefits to pay for electricity I'd rather install solar on their roof.

So for a government, this needs not cost more than what they are doing now.

> that could be: give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families, tax the profits of oil and gas companies, enforce right to repair, remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe, fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying, invest in renewable energy to make electricity cheap. theres a lot of options. all of them will lead to some inflation and public debt but there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

The problem is that most of these (and potentially all of these) ideas sound good, but achieve very little. Some (e.g. right to repair, sadly) will achieve almost nothing at all. This would be a scatter-gun approach at best; at worst, it creates the impression of doing something while actually doing very little.

I don't know what the best solution is. Arguably a genuine carbon tax (one that taxes large producers for the previously-externalised costs of greenhouse gas production, while providing tax cuts to the general population) is the single most effect means of enacting real change. However, Australia demonstrated that even a scheme that results in real, substantial income tax cuts while generating measurable, real reductions in emissions is vulnerable to a scare campaign by a committed, ultra-right attack dog politician.

I strongly suspect that our only potential way out of this now is via geoengineering, and that's fraught with dangers. I am also worried that a lack of government interest in climate change will eventually induce a highly wealthy individual to undertake geoengineering privately, without oversight, scientific input or regulation. But I cannot see the world stopping this any other way, other than by reversing the effects of climate change via nuclear winter.

> Some (e.g. right to repair, sadly) will achieve almost nothing at all.

I'd be curious as to why you say that. I feel that, right now, you would be correct. But if we could move society to a new paradigm where right-to-repair were the default, then cheap non-OEM parts manufacturers would bloom and repairing something would become much cheaper than replacing. Imagine if every object sold had to come with a manual describing how to repair common failures, and a support department to answer for other components.

Personal anecdote: My $700 oven has a microswitch that broke. The oven wouldn't work without it but the replacement part was all of $5. However the vast majority wouldn't know how to repair it.

Expand this to cellphones, computers, tables, wardrobes, cars, tractors and I feel it would have an impact. And... I suppose... my gut feeling is the biggest part of the problem is psychological. People are overwhelmed and don't know what they can do to help. Raising awareness is crucial, but just raising awareness obviously does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions - it's in second order effects when people start thinking harder about what they can do.

Another anecdote: I gave a seminar recently about energy to a small local environmental conference in a nearby town. My starting point was that nobody knows how to talk about energy - we can talk about length, size, weight, cost, speed, age, price, longevity and so, because we know the units - feet or meters, pounds or kilograms, dollars/euros/yen/etc, mph/kph/mps/etc and so on. But ask someone what is a "Joule" or what can you do with a "kilowatt-hour" and you get blank stares. The outcome? I learned of an attendee who drew lines on his kettle for 1-cup, 2-cups, and so on, and now boils only the necessary amount of water. That won't really move the needle on CO2, but it will raise awareness.

> if we could move society to a new paradigm

That's the reason why. That's just too big of an "if".

Any premise that is predicated on an artificially-induced complete paradigm (counter to the interests of capital, no less) shift to bear significant fruit is pretty much a non-starter. You need incredible buy in for that (which right-to-repair is just too niche to have), and established interests will still push against it every step of the way.

Maybe the EU could do it, but even then I'm skeptical.

No matter how bad the climate crisis gets, those who have the power to change it (heads of state/capital) will never abandon their lifestyles which expend 1000x more energy and fossil fuels than the average person. Pushing for voluntary, individual reductions in consumption is pointless and insulting to the average person.

    > scrap unpopular things like ulez

"ulez"? I assume that you mean Ultra Low Emissions Zone, such as the ones in London or Milan? As I understand, for the people who live inside the zone, there has been a dramatic improvement in air quality. For the people who live outside and need to pay to drive in the ULEZ, I suggest they switch to a lower emission or electric vehicle to avoid or reduce their driving fees. In the case of London, the gov't should offer huge incentives to small businesses replace old dirty diesel trucks.

    > remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe

I recommend that EU follow the path that the US followed. It maintains modest tarrifs on auto imports, but strongly encourages (cheap lending, tax rebates, etc.) foreign manufs to build and operate plants and R&D centers in the US. Since the late 1980s, this has been widely practiced by Japan, Germany, and Korea. As the US auto industry became less and less competitive, they were effectively replaced by autos built in the US by foreign companies.

    > fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying

I did a quick Google search. More than 70% of air passengers are travelling for leisure; some sources say as high as 88%. We should use a "green tax" on all air passengers to help fund anything and everything to reduce carbon footprint. How about 10-20 USD per ticket? In my mind, air travel in rich countries is way too cheap in this era.

> to scrap unpopular things like ulez

How is ulez unpopular? Its geographical, age or class axis. In some places: like the cities, its extremely popular and extremely unpopular in other places: just outside the cities, especially for people who can't afford electric vehicles. Just cos some people vandalise the cameras, don't make it inherently popular or not. Its just that a very few _really_ don't like it, to the extent they're willing to smash stuff up.

> give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families, tax the profits of oil and gas companies, enforce right to repair, remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe, fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying, invest in renewable energy to make electricity cheap... there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

The basic issue remains that if we don't punish people relative to their burning of carbon then we're never gonna deal with climate change. One human can undo the hard work of many in one casual or selfish act. By the sound of international debate on the subject we should probably be investing in geo-engineering instead if we care for outcomes.

For all the presumed benefits of a populist green movement, I doubt it would actually care enough about the root issue and easily yield to self-interest. Every electorate-level conversation about climate change always starts and ends with talking about someone _else's_ carbon usage, never our own. As a species we're simply not mature enough to note what habits we've deeply embedded in our culture that are inherently problematic, like supermarkets.

> How is ulez unpopular?

As a rule most people with a ~10 year old car which runs fine at low cost are going to be frustrated at an extra tax on their vehicle. (It is not like the manufacture of a new electric car is green.)

Ordinary People always were going to have to suffer to migrate off fossil fuels. Expecting them to like it is somewhat hopeful!

sure, but air quality is noticeably better in cities, so I can't let it stand that its just inherently unpopular. Some people like the benefits and enjoy them, those who don't like the downsides express that loudly.

It's not just a talking point (see ded comment below), every time we try to publicly survey to implement traffic calming ideas in our city (UK) its a stalemate between in towners and out of towners. Usually the crowds turn up to alternating ballots which is fun. Only thing that upsets me is out of towners talking like literally nobody wants it, which clearly isn't true.

I mean if your commitment to climate change or air quality in cities ends at charging people with vehicles that pollute more to enter the city: then did you have any in the first place?

You say "entering the city" but it literally applies to people who live there. My old car would have cost me every use even if all I did was move it to respect a temporary parking restriction. It isn't about dislike, it is financial hardship largely affecting those of more limited means (hint, old cars).

I am fine with ulez, but it is really important to be clear that people do suffer for it. Not out of towners. Real Londoners - especially with the extension to the outer boroughs.

The ULEZ in London was first discussed in 2014, so the writing was on the wall for diesel cars since then.

I agree - I think we really need to encourage reduction in the obvious negative habits and encourage people to take up more positive habits. eg.

- Use car less; walk, cycle, or use public transport more - Eat meat & air-freighted food less; eat local/seasonal produce more - Treat household items as disposable less; repair what breaks and buy for longevity more

I am sure there are plenty more, but how to incentivise these things is a hard problem. One exception being food, where you could easily shift agricultural subsidies away from intensive factory farming and towards local/seasonal food (details may be more complex, but it's do-able!)

Unpopular opinion, but we need to start using hard and soft power if we want to fix this problem.

Europe cannot fix climate change on its own, and we already represent an increasingly small share of total emissions.

The question now is how we get other countries onboard fast, and if they continue to build out cheap coal-fired power stations what are we going to do about it? Something or nothing?

Unless we can get every nation onboard, we should switch strategies to one of managing the inevitable rather than hopeless trying to prevent it. Costly energy policies that reduce global emissions by roughly 0.5% (basically what will happen if the UK ever achieves net-zero) are a total waste of money and time.

Those who care about this issue need to get real and need to stop pretending that the solution is for a few more people in the UK putting solar panels on their roofs. Climate change is a global problem. If your solutions are domestic then they're not serious.

I've pitched this idea before. But instead of something like the Paris Climate Accords which were an agreement for people to self-regulate and reduce emissions. What is needed is an agreement that is a sort of cartel. Nations a,b,c agree on these policies (carbon per person, environmental regulations, etc), and any nation that wants to export services/goods to a,b,c they must enter the agreement or be subject to tariffs.

I would say that the EU is edging towards this idea. I don't say that to be negative. I support it. One idea: Create per-product, per-country tarrifs based upon their average carbon footprint. If foreign manufs reduce their carbon footprint for the product, then the tarrif is reduced. This creates a good incentive to progressively reduce carbon footprint.

Yeah, this is exactly the type of thing I'd support.

The UK (where I live) emits something like 0.5% of global CO2, but we're one of the largest economies in the world.

If we're going to do anything it seems we should really be doing everything we can to use our economic might to try to do something about that other 99.5%. Where as at the moment we're wasting our time obsessing about how we bring down that 0.5%, and providing an economic horror story for why no other country should replicate what we're doing.

Deindustrialization in the west is imo largely due to this. Pollution was bad. Trying to clean things up was good. But you can't increase the cost 10x, and then allow a company to set up shop across the border and ship things in doing those practices still. The local environment becomes cleaner, so you export that toxic part, but the global impacts are still bad AND you hollow out your industrial core.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Europe dismantled their own nuclear plants and are actively trying to ban electric vehicles from China.

Getting the rest of the world on board would be much easier when you (presumably are in Europe) are getting your domestic policies right.

> enforce right to repair

How much would this change Niño surface temperatures, you reckon?

The word you're looking for is nuclear. Everywhere.

The word is solar. Instant reduction in CO2 emissions, won't be a decade late, and won't be obsolete by the time it's finally ready. Nuclear is a politician's vanity project. And politicians do have a knack for choosing the wrong thing at the wrong time, by ignoring the market. Just let the engineers make the call.

I think the engineers tend to say nuclear makes much more sense than solar for baseload right? That, and “most of the cost and delay is in these obscenely overcautious regulations?”

Not really, there a lot of factors making nuclear expensive apart from regulations. And is also clear that you need some regulations.

As of today, batteries are on par with nuclear cost. And falling.

As for the "obscenely regulations", I had read this before, but nobody can tell me what are they referring to. Because not to long ago France had a massive problem of corrosion in half their nuclear plants, and currently is having a second one (https://balkangreenenergynews.com/french-power-prices-jump-a...). It seems that "obscenely overcautious regulations" still not enough to catch leaks on time, defects that now threat with a energy crisis in France (and secondarily in Europe).

> Nuclear is a politician's vanity project. And politicians do have a knack for choosing the wrong thing at the wrong time, by ignoring the market.

Nuclear benefits the politicians' vested supporters, major corporations. Renewables are smaller and not vested interests.

> Just let the engineers make the call.

That dangerously assumes that engineers don't have their own biases and corruption. It's hard to fathom that perspective given what everyone can see happening in Silicon Valley for years.

And we should have started at least 30 years ago. But better late than never?

>combustion engine bans

You think that won't do anything?

Riots

Taxes, debt, loss of shareholder value, and infrastructure buildouts are all highly visible to large swathes of the American population.

Republicans are an anti-tax and to some extent anti-debt constituency. Liberals are also fairly anti-tax, unless it’s limited to taxing the rich. There’s opposition now to all forms of new energy infrastructure: to oil/gas/nuclear from the left and many liberals, to wind/solar from the right.

There are no “easy ways.” Only hard fights, against both sometime allies and longtime political opponents.

Backend changes? The world should have a revolution as our leaders have completely failed us.

> there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

Oh? Do tell.

We have plenty of centi-millionaire individuals in the world. Over ten thousand in the USA alone.

You got my vote!

Remember when the Obama and Biden admins started a bunch of solar incentives and Trump rolled them back?