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
I've been hearing for over a decade that carbon taxes are the solution. I've also been hearing that Republicans are standing in the way of this solution.

What I've never heard is an explanation of why some sensible, well-run scandinavian country hasn't already implemented this and brought their emissions down to zero.

If there are simple solutions to this problem then why hasn't some country already implemented them?

>>jjjjj5+Pl6
Sweden has had a carbon tax since 1991 and has almost halved co2 emissions since.

Sources:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden

https://government.se/government-policy/swedens-carbon-tax/s...

>>K0nser+hN6
The US has dropped them 25% over the same time period, so Sweden has done 25 percentage points better. That's less than a 1% compounded drop for those 35 years, and that's assuming that all of the delta was attributable to carbon taxes. That's not a very convincing case.