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.
No sovereign is going to agree to subordinate itself without all others doing the same
Classic prisoners dilemma
Instead, it should be paired with a dividend which makes it revenue neutral for the median household. Lower income families, who are more impacted by but less responsible for climate change, would be paid a benefit.
They are universally rather timid in their scope, and politically fragile. So maybe they aren’t going to get us there, at least not in their current form.
But it’s going too far to say they just don’t exist or can’t exist.
We have plenty of treaties that inhibit states. Nuclear weapons, slavery, pollutants. Enlightentment and enlightened self-interest isn’t out of the question.
Ask Lybia how nuclear disarmament went
Go count all the slaves supplying the global market for chocolate, cobalt, mica, vanilla etc...
How about prisoners in the US making .20-.50c/hr making license plates or literally picking cotton on a former slave plantation in alabama.
Or how about slave labor in the form of migrant children working in factories for Hyundai in the US south
The concept of self-interested Neoliberalism has utterly failed and it is turning into a global catastrophe
The earth cannot sustain 8 Billion people each living at millionaire consumption standards
In germany we can't agree on building new north-south power lines to transport the energy we generate through wind power.
..and in the USA (and many other 1st world countries) you still have one of the two political parties who doesn't even agree that climate change is either real or poses a serious problem.
We should not be making energy expensive for the lay person.
Provide subsidies to build new solar, wind and nuclear farms - sure.
The world will quickly adapt renewable energy if it is much cheaper and convenient to use it.
In similar vein, for god sake don’t tax solar panels above usual tax rate. I’m looking at Arizona.
The biggest mistake any democratic government can make is life more expensive and miserable for their population.
That seldom goes well.
2) Another big chunk of the working population would lose their jobs because their industry gets shaken up: Those working in polluting industries (coal and gas) or the huge part of the economy that's surrounding petro-chemicals (gas stations clerks, heating engineers, fuel truck drivers), etc.
You would need to redistribute the CO2 tax income as welfare checks but again: That's not a politically viable solution because the fear of job losses pretty much outweighs anything else.
Also see above where I said to build out nuclear asap and at economically significant rates.
In fact, you live better - far better - than anyone in history. It's not even close. It was built by the post-war 'neoliberal' order, on a foundation of human rights and free markets.
For us to quit and complain after all the work our predecessors did, remaining optimistic and working in a much starker situation - after depressions and world wars - would be pathetic abdication of our duties.
I suggest you read this:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.026...
The international political system has a long track record of cajoling nations into joining treaties that theoretically are like this.
It's not prisoner's dilemma, because the main property of the PD problem is that parties are prevented from communicating and cooperating with each other. When there's negotiations, transparencency/monitoring, etc, parties can cooperate. If you think international treaty development is like PD, you are due for a for a big optimism update!
Life is hard and always has been, but it's far easier than the lives of our ancestors (on average, of course).
Just look at the people who lived through - or the (200?) million who died in and more who lost everything in - WWII, less than 100 years ago, right after the Great Depression, right after WWI. And they were optimistic and energetic enough to build historically free, peaceful, and prosperous postwar order.
There is far more to do, absolutely. Let's get to work.
This might be true, but what exactly are you suggesting?
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.
Is it something like a downvoted comment? I fail to see a downvote button (which I am happy about).
I'm not sure how these two ideas make sense in your head. If you implement a carbon tax and the rich are the greatest contributors as you stated, one would expect them to be hit by the carbon tax as well.
In any case, I personally see an income tax as a strange thing to have in the context of a discussion wherein taxing undesirable behavior is seen as a way of disincentivizing it.
At the very minimum free the working class and lower-middle class from income tax.
I've found HN pretty divided when it comes topics like energy/climate/electric vehicles, immigration and foreign policy.
Before I used to feel bad, now I somewhat expect to be downvoted bringing up anything that doesn't fit someone's worldview.
I lived a decade in Seattle, WA which is a strong blue/liberal state as it goes. Sometimes pretty extreme. Now I am in Florida which is now a solid red state since Trump. It's interesting to see how the thought bubbles and world views have formed.
>That seldom goes well.
We are the richest nation in the world, so calling life "miserable" is hyperbole beyond belief. You talk about this like it's a new problem.
We have been trying to get a carbon tax since literally 1992, but the response is always the type of nonsense your suggesting, which is designed to be feel-good bs.
If we want to stop climate change, we have to change our behavior, period. We could have done that slowly, but we chose to not do it at all.
If you're worried about life being miserable... buckle up.
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.
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?
But let's take it. So the assumption is that there is an alternative that is better than gasoline. Nuclear is largely dominant on the coasts and gasoline usage is roughly half for goods delivery across the middle of the country where everything is coal powered. So at least for the moment, do you prefer reliance on gasoline or coal for goods delivery?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...
Sources:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden
https://government.se/government-policy/swedens-carbon-tax/s...
And yes, imagine what this would look like at $20 a gallon :/
So everyone is just pushing half solutions and talking a lot. Politicians will never go for hard solutions, especially when everyone is satisfied by talking about magic pills like "green deal", "more renewables" or (from current top comment) "climate advocacy" and "citizen engagement".
People just love talking. And feeling good about it.