There are no technical or economical hurdles that stops us from strongly mitigate the climate change. It is pure politics. And it make me so angry.
They treat it as politicians that need to get re-elected, since that's linked to direct and indirect financial rewards. However, climate is something which is going to dramatically change in 50-100 years. The sea levels might not rise by 1 meter in the next 10-20 years. That means climate change isn't this government's problem. So no, there isn't a government on this planet that is going to treat climate change as an emergency.
A lot of young people say they want to combat climate change and want politicians to do so.
But I've also seen the studies when those same people are asked about willingness to pay/sacrifice to accomplish that goal. They are... not good.
We will see if the next generation supports a carbon tax if it means higher prices for consumer goods and the benefits disproportionately accrue to people 2 generations down the line.
Interestingly, the younger generation is less willing to pay than the 30-44 age group, even though willingness to pay is uncorrelated with income.
$10/mo is very little, and the fact that we can barely get majorities of the younger generation to say that that would be okay is disheartening.
Some communities would disappear. Look at Canada. Without trucking, air or train with low-cost energy-efficient fuel combustion to move goods, you have no way to supply the vast majority of the inland for large countries.
In addition, trucking et c. will not disappear. The moment the economic incentives are there, there will be hydrogen fuel cell trucks on the roads in almost a blink. The technology is there.
I think if actually work through a solution in just about any industry you'll find that it's actually fairly complex, both in terms of technical implementation and economic adaptation.
Can you elaborate with an example? Most industry has managed to completely transition from coal -> natgas in the last decade and a half so I find it hard to believe that the transition is just so complex it isn't possible.
If we price carbon at what it actually costs, seems like they'd figure out how to transition again.
a) We don't have a good way to normalize offset pricing, there's a nascent market but there is tremendous variability in pricing.
b) It's also not clear how much the offset market can scale on existing approaches and technologies. We can only plant so many trees, and we aren't in a position to run most heavy transport or ag off of current electrification technologies. Eventually we're going to need new technologies to reduce dependencies on petroleum and find alternatives or develop carbon capture technologies for processes that are difficult to reduce any further.
c) Economically, nothing happens in a vacuum. When one company our country or industry begins pricing in these externalities, they are placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Tariffs and regulation will likely need to be introduced to moderate the inevitable shift in trade and the increased prices will cascade to the consumer.
Ultimately I agree with most of what you're saying, including that political decisions are a large factor.
If this is our rubric and measure of good governance, why don't we all just become fascists already? At least in that case we could pretend to be unified and proud of what we're doing, instead of this chaotic, bungled, arbitrary response that takes hints from authoritarianism without getting any of its benefits.
> There are no technical or economical hurdles that stops us from strongly mitigate the climate change.
This statement is absurd. Do you have some magic wand that is going to solve the car problem, or the international shipment problem? Have you got some secret battery technology that you aren't letting on about, perhaps one that doesn't require extremely expensive rare materials to produce?
Remember, as you drive your Tesla around, that nigh-indentured Chinese workers essentially engaged in mining actions arguably worse than classic colonialism in Africa are responsible for providing you with your "clean" vehicle, which will probably never make up for the emissions created in its production....
> I’d bet you that few cars run by fossil fuels will be sold in Europe or North America in ten years from now
Pipe dream. I'd take that bet. You'll have to weasel out with creative definitions of "few".... not everyone lives in the city, man.