Who should bear the burden of combating climate change?

MichaelElpers

If it is real and based on carbon emissions then the countries emitting the most emissions are the most responsible.  How quickly we must react depends on the severity.

Anyways, its not necessarily fair to keep underdeveloped countries from starting their industrial revelution, so id ssy the best way to do it is to focus on clean energy that can be used by all countries not just the wealthy ones. Making clean energy fossil fuel like we did with natural gas across the world is much better than solely trying to fix the U.S. emissions with inefficient wind and solar.

Happy_Killbot

EVERYONE

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

EVERYONE

Equally?

ZeusAres42

"should" is a strong word. I think would be nice if everyone played their part but no one should be dictated to. In fact, shouting out that people should be doing this or that could actually have the opposite effect of what was intended.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Do you want global GDP to drop by a third?

Do you want rationing of currently abundant resources?

Do you want the ecology of this planet to collapse in ways we are not even beginning to understand?

Do you want mass migration into every developed country?

Do you want a world where authority and autocracy reign supreme?

Do you want meat to cost several times what it currently does (adjusted for inflation)?

So you want storms to be more frequent, unpredictable, and powerful?

Do you want sea levels to rise drastically in some places?

Do you enjoy Coffee, Chocolate, Beer, and honey to be scarce or extinct?

At the end of the day, we can't rely on governments to fix this because they will use it as a means to power and then do nothing to further justify their rule, we can't rely on wimpy corporations to do anything, otherwise they wouldn't oppose changes like a carbon tax in the first place, and if we can't even rely on ourselves, well then we are f***ed.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers You know what I think is dumb?

In the US we are trying to develop all this green energy technology, meanwhile in developing nations they have no power or infrastructure. Kind of seems like we could kill two birds with one stone here, developing nations can keep the developmental green technology, and everyone benefits from the long term knowledge.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Do you think we are creating a bunch of green energy technology and just discarding it?

What im saying is that we should not be funding research in solar and wind, they arent very effective and cant be stored.  There are more promising forms of energy.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers I assume you are talking about nuclear here. Yes, nuclear is much better than renewable in a lot of ways, but I think the ideal energy grid would use both nuclear and renewable, where nuclear would provide a stable constant energy source that would ideally be 20-50% of the total power, and the renewable combined with battery storage to make up the remainder, which would grow over time to meet rising demands.

What I was saying was we should skip the fossil fuel stage in developing nations and skip straight to renewable, and because this tech is untested here, we can develop it for them, which would produce a superior product anyways, because to make it work in developing nations requires low overhead costs, high up-time, and high reliability.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot Other forms other than nuclear can be done.

  But what im talking about is cleaner fossil fuels...what you are talking about is way too expensive... its just not feasible. However if we can find cheap solutions to clean up emissions from fossil fuels countried like china, ect may be far more likely to apply them.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers There is no such thing as a "green" fossil fuel. Natural gas and biomass are not as bad as coal, but they still release CO2, which builds up in the atmosphere as a green house gas. Even in principal, biomass is carbon-positive, because it takes energy to run the equipment to harvest and transport the crops. Despite this, transitioning existing coal plants to biomass is a good idea, but should not be a permanent solution.

Nuclear gets a bad wrap because of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, but if you look at the deaths caused from power plants by tera-watt hour, nuclear is the safest, no contest. It also is the most reliable, with a capacity factor that puts even solar and natural gas to shame.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't even that radioactive. Coal ash is more radioactive pound for pound than nuclear waste, and because of a loophole in the law, it is not required to be controlled in any way because the radioactivity comes from "natural" sources. Sometimes it even gets recycled, despite containing heavy metals and radioactive isotopes which are concentrated when coal is burned.

http://cleanenergyaction.org/2010/12/16/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Nuclear has a high startup cost, but very low operating costs. In some situations, it can actually be the cheapest form of power production. This depends more on location than anything else, since installation of wind and geothermal have a lower LCOE (Levelized cost of Energy), they are often the most cost effective if you have the land and location, which is the real reason nuclear wins over all the other options - it is the most energy dense by land use. Wind and solar need 75-150 times more land area than nuclear, and 3-5 times for coal and natural gas. At the end of the day, it is cheaper to retrofit and repair operating nuclear reactors than to replace them with other methods, hence my suggestion that to use renewable to make up for the increase in power demand, and keep open reactors operating.

Natural gas has a lower LCOE than nuclear in the US, where natural gas is being cheaply extracted from shale reserves in the northeast. However, if a carbon tax was introduced, this could shift that balance in nuclear's favor. Having cheap power does not offset the long term costs if it means that our long term GDP will suffer. Besides this, a carbon tax could actually stimulate the economy, by forcing companies to cut costs and reduce resource consumption, something they could do now but don't because there is no penalty to doing so.

And now for the real kicker- Nuclear is the ONLY option which can be carbon Negative!

Why?

fossil fuels should be self-explanatory, to sequester every molecule of CO2 you need more energy than what was released to produce it in the first place.

As I have already stated, wind and solar take up large land mass to function, so you must clear land and reduce area for growing carbon-absorbing plants, so while it doesn't produce any CO2, it does very little to sequester it.

Nuclear on the other hand, doesn't have these problems, and so it can technically be carbon negative.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Do you want global GDP to drop by a third?

Do you want rationing of currently abundant resources?

Do you want the ecology of this planet to collapse in ways we are not even beginning to understand?

Do you want mass migration into every developed country?

Do you want a world where authority and autocracy reign supreme?

Do you want meat to cost several times what it currently does (adjusted for inflation)?

So you want storms to be more frequent, unpredictable, and powerful?

Do you want sea levels to rise drastically in some places?

Do you enjoy Coffee, Chocolate, Beer, and honey to be scarce or extinct?

At the end of the day, we can't rely on governments to fix this because they will use it as a means to power and then do nothing to further justify their rule, we can't rely on wimpy corporations to do anything, otherwise they wouldn't oppose changes like a carbon tax in the first place, and if we can't even rely on ourselves, well then we are f***ed.

Wow, lots of words that don't answer my simple one word question.  Once again, as you believe everyone should bear the burden of combating climate change, should they bear that burden equally?

MichaelElpers

@CYDdharta

I agree with you on nuclear...i am a fan.  I dont think a carbon tax will help the economy.

Companies already try to cut costs and resource consumption...the less cost they have compared to how much they produce the more money they will earn.  A carbon tax would just cause them to raise their prices on their goods and services.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta I never said it should be equal now did I?

All I said was everyone, implying that there is no one person who can be held responsible, and no one person who can be spared from responsibility.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers I think you have it all backwards and I can make an economics argument here.

Lets say there are two competing companies that exist in the same market, then a carbon tax is introduced. If one company simply raises prices to meet the extra costs, while the other invests in energy management systems, insulation, roof top solar panels, and cost neutral things like employee training, then over time the prices of the second company will drop because they are now spending less money to make the same product, giving them a competitive edge.

The types of things that I mentioned here are not things most companies do or have, energy management systems, insulation, roof top solar panels, and cost neutral things like employee training because they represent an investment from the company itself. companies usually don't take risks unless they are justified, and at the moment there is nothing to justify the risk so little or no investments will be made.

This is exactly what we have seen in Australia when they introduced a carbon tax, many companies invested in these types of things and ended up decreasing overhead costs. Some businesses that were already struggling to make ends meet went out of business, but the companies that did not ended up stronger and more economically viable afterwords. As long as the tax is not excessive, or introduced rapidly it can actually be beneficial. Probably based on this information the best way to implement it would be a slow progressive tax system that would get larger every year, giving businesses an opportunity to adjust.

Release of CO2 is poisoning the planet, if a company or individual spilled their trash all over the street we would be appalled by this and make them pay a fine. So why don't we treat CO2 the same way?

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Well it depends, because the company that your talking about that is making investments has to pay for those somehow, thats expensive stuff.  

So what it would really mean is that in the short term they would have to raise their prices higher than the competing company, or big businesses would crush the small ones that cant afford to make the adjustments.

If you really think climate change is that bad, theres no time to be progressive in carbon taxing

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers We don't have the time to be not progressive with carbon taxing. Ideally this should have started over a decade ago.

Plaffelvohfen

Everyone bears that burden, it's an existential imperative, it's a question of survival in the long run... 

Not sure that "combating" is the right word to use though, I would use "adapting to" climate change, and every solution proposed by Happy_Killbot are to me, good ways to adapt to climate change... To "fight climate change" sounds a bit arrogant and naive at the same time... Arrogant in thinking we have control (sure we obviously can influence but that's far from control), and naive in thinking that enough humans will wake up in time to be able to do anything about it anyway... 

I do my part as an individual, that's all I can do...But I have zero faith in humanity to unite on this subject... We won't die out as a specie because of climate change, but the global economic cost of doing nothing will be a whole lot greater than many deniers think, that's where to most hurt will come from, globally... 

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I never said it should be equal now did I?

All I said was everyone, implying that there is no one person who can be held responsible, and no one person who can be spared from responsibility.

No, you didn't say anything, which is why I asked.  So how do you think responsibility should be apportioned?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta No less than what responsibility belongs to each should be appropriated to them, this is self evident.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta No less than what responsibility belongs to each should be appropriated to them, this is self evident.

So what responsibility does belong to each, and who should determine that?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta It should be based on the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by each person due to their consumption of fossil fuels, concrete,  and fossil fuel based energy. The price would go up over time, starting at around $15 per ton of CO2 and leveling off at around $50.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta It should be based on the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by each person due to their consumption of fossil fuels, concrete,  and fossil fuel based energy. The price would go up over time, starting at around $15 per ton of CO2 and leveling off at around $50.

Why look only at fossil fuels?  Why not in the actual amount of greenhouse gasses produced?  The people that started the Australian wildfires only used a few gallons of gas, but their impact has been enormous.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta I did suggest that. You didn't read the two sentences I wrote did you?

MayCaesar

First, one needs to decide whether it is even desirable to combat climate change. I drove through Atlanta yesterday, and the temperature was below the freezing point... I do not think these are the conditions humans are supposed to live under (we historically come from warm territories in Africa), so if climate change can, for example, make winters milder, then perhaps it will be to humans' advantage. One could object that we should not look at this from the anthropocentric perspective, and just because something might be for the best for humans, does not mean it is a preferable outcome overall - but if so, then why have this discussion in the first place? If the animals' interests come before humans' interests, then animals should be the ones tackling climate change, not humans.

Next, I do not think this is the right question to ask. What does it mean "who should bear"? Are you going to force someone to bear this burden against their will? This does not sound very humane.

In my opinion, those who want to combat climate change should bear the burden of doing so, and those who do not want to do it should not. Climate is a shared commodity, it does not belong anyone and does not impose any obligations on anyone. If you want to combat climate change, go ahead and do so - as long as me not wanting to do so does not make you want to force me to. If you start imposing taxes on people driving trucks and subsidize electric car purchases, then you are crossing the line and should be put in check.

The fuel costs much more in California than in Arizona. Know what people living near the border do? They drive in California, but shop for fuel in Arizona. As a result, the coercive means in California used to combat carbon emissions actually do the opposite, as people drive as much as before, plus those living by the border add some extra driving distance to go to Arizona and buy gas there and then go back. Market is funny in this way: it does the opposite to what the government tries to force. Common wisdom say that if the government goes all-in in the attempt to combat climate change, then it will actually accelerate the climate change. That is a funny aspect as well to consider when having these discussions: unintended consequences are a thing and often undermine the entire proposed policy. Yet the policy typically still ends up being pushed through on a populist narrative.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Climate change will not make winters milder, in fact, it isn't predictable how things will change, and that is the real threat. We do not know how things will change. Never before in earth's history have we seen changes this fast. It could make winters colder and summers hotter. It could make winters warmer and summers dominated by storms. We do not know, and it is fundamentally not possible to know.

To beat this point in, consider that the rise in sea level in New York city is 1.5 times the average global sea level rise, and the sea level around Greenland is actually decreasing. If this doesn't shock you it should. There are over 3,000 known factors into determining sea level, and the science is ridiculously complex.

It is ridiculous to say: "If the animals' interests come before humans' interests, then animals should be the ones tackling climate change, not humans." When we are the ones who are causing it. That is like saying: If the interests of this girl I am raping come before mine, then why shouldn't she be the one stopping the rape, not me?

If you care about responsibility, then you will take responsibility for the harm that you, as an individual, have done to the planet so that future generations can survive and the human race can flourish.

If people do not want to do anything as about climate change, they represent a threat to the future of life on this planet. This is like expecting others to clean up your mess for you, and again represents an extreme lack of responsibility for future generations and life on this planet in general.

In government action accelerates climate change, it is due to the incompetence of government officials. The carbon tax implemented in Australia is an excellent resource for what to do and what not to do in policy making, and because individual citizens can access that info, governing officials have no excuse to not do so. This is not a populist policy, in fact it is exactly the opposite. It is very unpopular but necessary, and as I have stated in posts above, it can actually benefit the economy in the long run by forcing companies to invest in energy saving internal policy and carbon reducing upgrades. This will ultimately save them money and expand the economy.

I consider it insulting to entrepreneurs to suggest that policies such as a carbon tax are too much for us to handle, that we don't have enough funds or are too dumb to adapt to such policies. A carbon tax will just throw that transition into high gear, forcing people to adapt to use less energy and produce less carbon than the bare minimum. It makes sense, and yes some hucksters will try to exploit rather than adapt, the rent seekers, cronies, and social parasites. These people should be weeded from our society, they hurt more than they help. They take more than they add. These people, are a threat to our very way of life, our very social order. They are as much part of the climate change problem as they are of the economic ones. There is no reason we can't fix this s*** except that people don't want to or don't think they have to do anything. It doesn't have to be this way.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I did suggest that. You didn't read the two sentences I wrote did you?

No, you didn't.  You said it should be "based on their consumption of fossil fuels, concrete,  and fossil fuel based energy".  Burning a dry field doesn't take any fossil fuels, concrete, or fossil fuel based energy.  It takes nothing more than a book of matches.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta What do you think I would recommend for these individuals, based on my other posts?

Nope

MayCaesar
"First, one needs to decide whether it is even desirable to combat climate change. I drove through Atlanta yesterday, and the temperature was below the freezing point... I do not think these are the conditions humans are supposed to live under (we historically come from warm territories in Africa), so if climate change can, for example, make winters milder, then perhaps it will be to humans' advantage. ...  If the animals' interests come before humans' interests, then animals should be the ones tackling climate change, not humans."
-Since your statements suggest we should ignore the well being of animal and plants (with the exception of when animals and plants benefit humans) I won't talk about them here. It is likely accurate humans originated from the warm climate of Africa and that such climates are suitable for human living, however this is not the only effect climate change is predicted to have. (I won't discuses about how some are concerned that climate change could possible lead to a run away effect) Climate change would likely change some of the weather and temperatures of existing places where people, infrastructure, and economy's are already suited for the current weather and temperatures. Desertification, droughts and more storms to name some examples. Many places with colder weather are suited for that weather. One probably should consider possible sea levels rising due to ice melting. Melting ice may leave some places near the poles with now accessible land which, well probably not well suited for living, possibly contain valuable resources which would be a benefit. However this water will cause other parts of land more suitable for human habitation and more importantly possibly have existing humans living there to be submerged which is arguably worse. 

"If you want to combat climate change, go ahead and do so - as long as me not wanting to do so does not make you want to force me to. If you start imposing taxes on people driving trucks and subsidize electric car purchases, then you are crossing the line and should be put in check."
-This is an entrusting point. Climate change is a global issue and as such it would effect many people and nations. Well I am not convinced people who drive trucks should be tax as is your examples that action does contribute to climate change. By this line of reasoning continuing that action effects some other people in a negative way manly if we consider how action like that can add up. Your argument states that taxing people driving trucks crosses a line as it has a negative impact on them. So where is this line drawn? Under what circumstances do things start becoming complicated and or need to be put in check?

"That is a funny aspect as well to consider when having these discussions: unintended consequences are a thing and often undermine the entire proposed policy."
-Government intervention does not have a direct correlation with the market where the market always does the opposite. Otherwise the government could try encourage actions that cause climate change (unless the correlation was with the governments desired results). A government there for should not just assume that a goal cannot be accomplished only that it must be careful when trying to achieve that goal. 

xlJ_dolphin_473

Those in power, the world leaders, have the most power to combat climate change, so mainly the world leaders. But that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to do anything. By doing simple actions such as giving up holidays abroad, you can make a huge impact. So everyone is responsible, but not equally.

xlJ_dolphin_473

MayCaesar said:

First, one needs to decide whether it is even desirable to combat climate change. I drove through Atlanta yesterday, and the temperature was below the freezing point... I do not think these are the conditions humans are supposed to live under (we historically come from warm territories in Africa), so if climate change can, for example, make winters milder, then perhaps it will be to humans' advantage. One could object that we should not look at this from the anthropocentric perspective, and just because something might be for the best for humans, does not mean it is a preferable outcome overall - but if so, then why have this discussion in the first place? If the animals' interests come before humans' interests, then animals should be the ones tackling climate change, not humans.

Next, I do not think this is the right question to ask. What does it mean "who should bear"? Are you going to force someone to bear this burden against their will? This does not sound very humane.

In my opinion, those who want to combat climate change should bear the burden of doing so, and those who do not want to do it should not. Climate is a shared commodity, it does not belong anyone and does not impose any obligations on anyone. If you want to combat climate change, go ahead and do so - as long as me not wanting to do so does not make you want to force me to. If you start imposing taxes on people driving trucks and subsidize electric car purchases, then you are crossing the line and should be put in check.

The fuel costs much more in California than in Arizona. Know what people living near the border do? They drive in California, but shop for fuel in Arizona. As a result, the coercive means in California used to combat carbon emissions actually do the opposite, as people drive as much as before, plus those living by the border add some extra driving distance to go to Arizona and buy gas there and then go back. Market is funny in this way: it does the opposite to what the government tries to force. Common wisdom say that if the government goes all-in in the attempt to combat climate change, then it will actually accelerate the climate change. That is a funny aspect as well to consider when having these discussions: unintended consequences are a thing and often undermine the entire proposed policy. Yet the policy typically still ends up being pushed through on a populist narrative.

Are you serious? Scientists currently believe that 2°C is a tipping point for humanity. Once there is 2°C of warming, there is only a 50-50 chance that humanity will go on. If you want the human race to continue, then yes, it is not only desirable but strictly necessary to combat climate change.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar " If you start imposing taxes on people driving trucks and subsidize electric car purchases, then you are crossing the line and should be put in check."

Ok, but what about subsidizing fossil fuels? Right now we spend more than the US defense budget on fossil fuel subsidies, and this leads to greater fossil fuel consumption.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Why should our tax dollars go to lowering the cost of fossil fuels, regardless of their effect on he health of this planets ecology? That is the current paradigm. If switching which form of energy is subsidized and which is is taxed is crossing the line, then you will need to explain why fossil fuels are so much better than every other type.

ZeusAres42

From an evolutionary and survival standpoint the more of us that play our part the more we can be held responsible for doing our part. As well as those that do nothing. Now, one might say why should we help others when it doesn't affect us? However, this is not true. Definitely not true from a survival and evolutionary standpoint. If one is of the attitude that would rather get super-rich at the expense of others then they would also do well to remember that these "others" are also their own flesh and blood; their own future generations, their own future children, etc. We humans only have about a 650, 000 hours lifespan on this earth and this is fleeting. And one thing we all desire is to live happily and comfortably. So why destroy that for future generations? And yes, if no human played their part and just ignored this issue it would inevitably lead to our extinction.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot ;

I take full responsibility for everything I do. It does not mean that I am going to accept any punishment a mob wants to inflict on me, and I will fight back if necessary.

I have never seen a governmental policy that would solve any problem better than the free market does. I keep an open mind, but so far I have had no reason to start believing that any government is capable of it, and politicians need to up their advertisement game to give me one.

There is no "us" here. There is me and you, and the question is: are you going to try to coerce me into playing your tune? If not, then I will go my way and do what I want, if anything at all, about the climate. If yes, then, again, there is no us, there is only a person employing violence to try to get me to do something, and me wanting to be left alone. "Us" arises when our goals and interests align, and they obvious do not in this particular case.


@Nope

I suppose we need to specify what kind of climate change exactly we are talking about. My point was simply that not every possible case of climate change is harmful to humanity, and some can actually be quite beneficial to us. Climate on Earth was quite a bit warmer than now 5,000 years ago, and that is exactly when human civilization started growing and evolving rapidly. Various evidence suggests that, should the Earth revert back to that climate, we would be more comfortable in it. On the other hand, say, climate change leading to thinning of the atmospheric layer and resulting in much stronger cosmic radiation could prove lethal to  

The simplest way to draw the line is... to not draw it at all. Let the market sort this out. This notion of the need for governmental intervention every time there is a semblance of an issue on a large scale, popular over the last ~100 years, perhaps needs to be done away with. Or maybe not. But it is something to consider, at least.


@xlJ_dolphin_473

I am afraid I do not get the joke.


@Happy_Killbot

Subsidies are, in essence, the same thing as taxes, just worded differently.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar If I showed up at you house and s*** on your doorstep, and burned down all the plants on your land, you would be angry right? If I did that and said all the things you said why wouldn't you expect violence? What is the difference between this and CO2 pollution?

Nothing.

The thing is, climate change is going to kill everything on the planet and basically make our ecology unsustainable. If you are a robot, not a big deal. If you are a human, really big deal! This will cause millions of deaths and displace even more people, it will result in financial ruin and widespread global conflict.

Yes, there is an "us" you seem to think that you are somehow separate from the rest of the human race, such solipsistic thinking can only isolate you from the rest of humanity.

The free market can only do so much, it isn't just going to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere when there is no reason to stop doing so, if fact some organisations will spend more on the spread of disinformation and fund climate change denial groups then they will investing in technology that will actually save them money by reducing energy consumption. If that doesn't strike you as a problem, it should.

Free markets can only work when there is a high degree of social trust between the participants, and actively poisoning the planet is not a good way to build trust.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

My house is mine. The climate is not yours, mine or anyone's. This is the difference.

I do not feel isolated from the rest of the humanity, because I do not walk around telling others what to do; I prefer to do something good for those people without expecting them to do something back for me. I would not expect others to treat me so well were I an authoritarian person, obviously.

If you want to have a high degree of social trust in your interactions with people, I suggest following this simple guideline: give value to others and do not expect any value back - and, somewhat counter-intuitively, this is how you get the highest value back.
If, on the other hand, you always try to force value out of others, then they will be protective of their value, and you will gain nothing. And then you will have to resort to asking the government to help you, making you dependent on the government... Things go downhill from there.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar So if the climate and the atmosphere doesn't belong to anyone, than what exactly gives anyone permission to dump waste into it whenever they say, drive there own car?

This is a form of pollution that hurts everyone. If by producing value, you are also producing negative value in the long term, that is obviously something we should punish as a society.

It's not that YOU will feel isolated from society, it's that OTHERS will isolate you from society! If you don't cooperate, people won't want to deal with you. This isn't to say you should conform, its just to say you should actively consider the thoughts and feelings of everyone around you, and learn how to deal with them. This is more important than intelligence.

Climate change effects all of us. Therefore, everyone should have a part to play in fighting it. This can't just take place in the free market, it must also take place on global, national, regional, and cultural terms. If you have ever read the sci-fi Dune novels, the same attitude the people of Dune have towards water we should have towards CO2 production.

smoothie

I don't believe any one government can stop climate change, and its pretty unrealistic to think so. We could sanction and punish other countries' all we want, but that's not very economical or fair. The world has many levels of economy and systems, simply punishing every company that uses emission fuels is pretty unfair to growing countries.

I believe the "burden" to combat climate change should fall on science to invent new ideas to combat climate change. If they invented emission-free energy that is also cheaper, many countries around the world will switch to it simply because of its cheapness, but in doing so will get rid of emission fuels. Nuclear energy is a great example, if we made it cheaper and more efficient, other countries would start its use and get rid of emission fuels. Another possible invention would be a device to clean excess emissions in the air, these could be placed around the world and supported by other governments. If we had a good economy and funding for science, we could get this done faster. I believe this should be encouraged.

We have invented great climate/temperature technology already: air conditioners, heating, refrigeration. I believe humanity's scientific minds would solve climate change.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

This is the wrong question to ask. Since it belong to no one, no one can either give permission or deny anything done to it in the first place.

I do not think "we as a society" can do anything, nor would "we" want to even if "we" could. And my objection to using the word "we" here still stands.

I do cooperate, however, which is why people generally are very positive towards me. It has been many years since anyone in real life has said anything negative about me to my face. And the way to cooperate is to provide value to others, not to pull it out of others by force, through manipulation or in any other one-sided way. It has been my experience that you can only control people for so long before they have had enough of you - however, if you focus on giving value, rather than taking value, then interestingly you get to take much more value in the end, than you otherwise would be able to. Human psychology works in a way that makes people strongly want to do something good for those who have done something good to them, and it is a much more lasting desire, than the one fear of punishment produces.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar So if I moved next door to you, and made a released  some mustard gas, which blew onto your property I couldn't be tried for murder right?

No, that's ridiculous, but this is essentially what you are saying. Because it is a resource we all share, it is everyone's responsibility to take care of it, and violators should have to pay something back to everyone because they violated a resource everyone shares.

Would you want littering fines to be removed? I guarantee that if people couldn't get fined for littering, they would go to the highway and just throw all the trash out the window. We have fines for this to create a disincentive for people to litter. CO2 is essentially the same when produced on industrial levels, so I can't think of ANY reason we should not treat it the same way.

The point still stands that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is taking value by destroying the planet's ecology.

The point that we are giving tax breaks to fossil fuel companies still stands, and the fact that it is possible and in many ways better to do the exact same thing with electric power still stands.

Nope

MayCaesar
Current and past evidence suggest that a free market is more efficient and innovative then just a government with the added benefit of being free for people in it. However the set up and regulations of such a market matters. A free market in itself does not generally lead to the well being of a countries citizens. Free markets also aren't always the best at dealing with the tragedy of the commons. One reason people own resources like land is because when something is owned the owner is likely to care about maintaining it and its benefits. Government however can, if set up to, help the well being of it's citizens and the economy by combating the tragedy of the commons. I would caution agents over trusting the market or having government be to controlling in deal with the issue or risk lousing the efficiency and innovation that a free market could provide when dealing with that issue.

xlJ_dolphin_473

MayCaesar said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

I am afraid I do not get the joke.

@MayCaesar
There is no joke here. Climate change is of the utmost severity and not to be laughed at. If you care about future generations of humans, there is no doubt that you should bear at least some of the burden of combatting climate change. Making winters milder comes at the cost of vast areas of land becoming uninhabitable, causing huge waves of migration and an even higher demand for resources in our higher areas of land. To just be very clear: You do not get the joke because there is no joke to be got.

SnigdhaBhattacharya

@Happy_Killbot
Really? What about Nepal, a carbon negative country? I disagree that everyone should have to bear responsibility for climate change.

SnigdhaBhattacharya

At this point I think the less developed countries should be worrying about producing enough renewable energy for us all, and the developed countries should prepare a backup plan for colonising mars in the near future, because climate change has gotten the ball rolling and some irreversible damage has already been done. Everyone should do much more than what we are doing now, but should be assigned different roles according to our different economic capacities. 

Happy_Killbot

@SnigdhaBhattacharya How does a country that is taking responsibility for carbon production excuse everyone else from needing to take responsibility?

What should excuse anyone from taking responsibility, unless they already are?

piloteer

The United States government subsidizes coal, gas, oil, and nuclear energy plants for them to adhere to federal requirements of maintenance of their infrastructure. Even though the American public pays for those subsidies, they aren't compensated for the cost in their energy bills. Those subsidies would be better used to pay for the development of renewable energy sources rather than a welfare system for maintaining the crumbling infrastructure of outdated fossil fuel sources (including nuclear which does rely on fossil fuels for operating). The brunt of the burden should be placed on the government for encouraging a renewable energy industry to make renewable energy products available for the general public. If and when renewable energy sources become the most reliable and most economically sound choice, the general public will use those options more readily.         

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

In this case, you are poisoning my property which is air on my territory, and to that level dangerous to my health at that, so naturally you would not get away with it. For the same reason, polluting a river dozens people have properties by would be unlawful. You are talking here not just about shared resource in the general sense; you are talking about shared property, and that is a different beast entirely.
Unless you can somehow attribute the atmosphere to private owners, your argument does not hold.

I would love littering fines to be removed and as much public land as possible privatized, so land owners could introduce their own rules. For that matter, the concept of "public land" itself is quite abominable. Land either belongs to a private owner, or it should belong to no one. Otherwise you get imperialism, where one large entity conquers land and assumes control over it by the nature of conquest.

Electric and other allegedly safer ("allegedly" because it is half-truth, at best) energy actually naturally arises on the free market. Why do you think I bought a hybrid car? For ideological reasons? I do not care about these things, and would drive a smoking truck without a second thought. Out of tax incentives? Did not apply in my state. Why then? One reason: I wanted to save money on fuel, so I needed as good gas mileage as possible.
The market already incentivizes renewables by making them less costly to customers in the long run. The government, as always, is late to the party, but so quick to claim credit for things it had no part in making a reality.

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer Nuclear power plants do not necessarily have to rely on fossil fuels for operation, because all of the infrastructure required for maintenance could be replaced with electric equipment.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Now wait a second, at the start of your post you make a claim about the atmosphere around your home belonging to you, but then completely undermine it by saying we can't attribute the atmosphere to private owners.

What if we not only removed littering fines, but provided a subsidy, or tax break, for anyone who littered? Would you support that then?

The first car that was commercially available was electric. Provided it was little more than a golf cart, it was quickly pushed out by market forces by steam and shortly thereafter by combustion engine vehicles. As for transitioning back to electric, I do believe that it will happen naturally more or less for the reasons you stated, because the price of driving per mile drops drastically ( to 10-15% costs), maintenance costs go way down ( less moving parts), and of course greenhouse gas emissions go way down as a result.

The real question here, that has been hinted at is: Why hasn't it happened already?

There are three reasons: the first is that the government is interfering in the form of subsidies for fossil-fuel companies, companies suck ( when compared to government entities) at innovation and science in general and so are mostly unwilling to take the financial risks involved with developing new technologies, and finally the fuel stations basically have to boot strap themselves in a market that has relatively few customers, which can't change until there are more electric cars, which can't happen until there are more recharging stations, chicken and egg scenario.

These things greatly inhibit growth of the electric vehicle sector, and we could talk about other reasons happening on the energy markets as well. The idea here is that the government should try to make this change happen as fast as possible, because the sooner it happens the lower the risk of long term economic destabilization. On top of this, every gallon of gas we don't burn today is a gallon of gas we can burn tomorrow, and who knows? we might need it and sunlight is free.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Atmosphere refers to the entire system, it does not refer to individual points of air close to people's homes, cars, etc. Local pollution, for example, is a very different beast, from global pollution as a whole. Think of it as the difference between you owning your pets at your home, and you trying to place a claim on all animals in a large wild forest.

I do not support either environmental taxes/fines, or subsidies. Depending on the exact amounts we are talking about and who they are given, one may be less harmful than the other, but I would not get behind either.
I would only get behind any kind of tax breaks insofar as I am against taxation in principle.

Electric cars are not nearly as harmless as many think; we only see the surface, which is cars getting charged from stations and rolling around with no emissions, but if you actually go deeper into how the electric energy is produced in the first place, you will see a lot of environmental horrors there. Overall they are probably "cleaner" than burning fossil fuels, but the difference is not as dramatic as you would think.

Why has not all cars become electric yet, you mean? Many reasons, mainly commercial: gas-based cars are easier to produce and sell. One day fossil fuels will probably become obsolete, and you see everything electric making a comeback nowadays. Do not expect the progress to go faster than it does, however: progress cannot be forced, and it takes time.
Hybrids used to be a toy of selected few Hollywood celebrities and environmental activists; nowadays you can buy a hybrid at every used car lot. It will not take long before the same is true for electric cars, and at that point few will want to drive gas-based cars, since it will be economically inefficient.
Cybertruck was just demonstrated recently. This is the future, and it is not the government that made it possible; it is Elon Musk, an extravagant enterpreneur. These are the guys to put hopes in the future in, not the guys in the parliaments around the world.

John_C_87

Nope said:

I am aware that some of you may not believe in climate change. If you want to call in to question if climate change is real or human made you may start a new debate about that. But for this debate we assume climate change is real and largely human driven. Which people, party's, countries and other entity's are most responsible and or should do the most to combat climate change?

There is nothing to call into question Climate Change is Nature based and Climate Manipulation is human based. Don Quixote of Mancha started battling climate change back in 1605 -`1615 .