zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
Just a contextual note -- one thing Sabine says is: AI won't help because we know the exact solution, we just aren't willing to do it.

Presumably she's referring to her first proposal -- a carbon tax. It's my understanding that there's nearly consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the most efficient solution to global warming, but political consensus that it would never happen when framed as a tax.

If you don't know what a carbon tax is, or why it's orders of magnitude more efficient a solution than "eat less meat" I'd encourage you to look into it a bit. Essentially if you create a system where what is best for the planet is also the cheapest course of action (for individuals and businesses), you no longer have to rely on convincing every single individual to change their morality/beliefs.

>>zug_zu+my2
It's finding a way to input the external costs of consumption of emissive products into their final price(s). In reality, a gallon of gas causes significantly more damage than the price paid at the pump - it was like $16/gallon when I saw a figure for it around 2010. Imagine how much differently a world with $20/gallon gas would look. There'd probably be massive pressures from all corners to move away from oil.

>>ianai+xz2
Gas was just under $4 a liter every time I've been to Europe. That's about $16/gallon. People were driving to work, and sitting in traffic, just like they do in the US.

>>trimet+YA2
For there, that'd be 32/gallon with the old figure I used.

>>ianai+oB2
Do you have any example of a country driving less when fuel costs were ALWAYS higher? I would guess short term, yes, but eventually people will drive just as much, and they will spend less on housing, which will decrease costs of housing to allow for a larger portion of income to pay for gas. That seems like basic economics to me. Unless, you have a real world example that contrasts that. People still have to get to work. They still have to pick up their kids from school. It doesn't matter what gas costs. They still have to. Just like they are paying double for it in Europe today, they will pay whatever it costs.

>>trimet+xX3
Absolutely, when gas doubled during the Great Recession I personally saw much less traffic on the roads in the major US city I lived in at the time. People were also much less aggressive on the roads. Unlike those days, people can now offset their use of oil for transportation with BEVs and PHEVs. See recent reports of oil/gas demand seemingly plateaued to decreasing.

When the price of something increases, energy included, alternatives become more attractive. Oil enjoyed strong price insensitivities for a long time, but those days are sunsetting.

Even China is seeing this with their “lying flat” movement. Dowries for a marriage are averaging USD 60,000(per The Economist). So instead men aren’t dating and aren’t doing the 996.

Russia is seeing it in European nations building LNG infrastructure at their major ports and taking deliveries from overseas. That’s a long term loss of business. And those same European nations are incentivizing their citizens to replace heaters with heatpumps and other means of reducing fossil fuel use.

When prices and costs increase people are incentivized to decide to go with alternatives.

>>ianai+rK4
I maybe don't understand the point of downvoting. Am I unwelcome on HN because of a differing opinion that strikes actual thought about a topic that is overwhelmingly run by a one sided story of solar good?

It would be fine if it didn't prevent me from replying. But since it does, it feels exactly like you covering my mouth while you yell in my face.

It surely doesn't make me think that I should vote for solar. If anything it makes me sure that people aren't doing any critical thinking. Aren't interested in scientific debate. And are simply pushing a marketing agenda without discussion. The Nazis did the same thing. I'll take CO2 over a world where we can't speak any day. It inspires me to rally against solar. Surely if it was scientifically sound it would be easy to defend without covering my mouth?

Go ahead and downvote again. It says everything I need to know about YC and HN and the kind of regard that you people have for human life, which is apparently none.

An echo chamber of lies and self serving agenda. Certainly not a place for science. And definitely not for the betterment of the environment. It's disgusting in short.