We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially difficult.
I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading. It's very easy for other countries to just point at the US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why should we do anything". And they are right. Why should they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't interested in changing their behavior.
You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10.
Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and petroleum because they hate the environment... they need cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap about it, it's a luxury at the moment).
This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure.
The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste.
But I realize there is a non-trivial amount of folks that believe doing something, anything is better than nothing - even if it is not logical and has no beneficial outcome.
Perhaps we should put those energies into productive means of solving the problem instead of emotionally "feel-good" solutions. Why does developing countries use dirty energy production? What can we do to make it cheaper to use renewables instead? Can we make biodegradable plastics more attractive than traditional plastics? That's just scratching the surface...
1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow. Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or significant adverse climate effects.
2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate effects.
What's the argument for choosing 2)?
Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe 50 years? But then what?
PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
It's really scary to me how common this kind of false dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in politics especially.
Also, being the leader makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc of cynical reactionaries within their borders pointing their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if other countries aren't?". If you do things first, you disarm that narrative that's going on in other countries, which makes it easier for their progressives to get change done locally.
Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything significant.
Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost decreases naturally follow as part of R&D.
Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries. They've emitted much more than poor countries per capita since the Industrial Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is only fair.
China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US.
> Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason
This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this already?
> Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries
I agree on some level. However I do not agree with pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel good day. That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...
To make a significant change over 20-50 years requires big investments now. Making those investments does not mean we are throwing away everything else immediately.
You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it.
This is going on while the state already struggles to keep itself energized year round. The current state of green energy will only exasperate California's problems, since storage tech still has a lot of catching up to do.
No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (affordable, always available renewable-power).
People like to throw around big numbers showing CA's increased production over the years... but they don't throw around storage capacity which is really what matters for renewables. There is no storage capacity to speak of...
I hear you that some "green" initiatives are poorly targeted but I don't think that means we should hit the brakes on regulating the things that are known climate issues (ie excess methane releases) or investment in improving our grid emissions.
Sounds like the issue is the fossil fuel lobby. Weird that delaying new renewables by a decade to build new nuclear or hydro aligns exactly with their interests.
It is ready today. Look at Denmark. It's more expensive than coal but it's cheaper if you factor in the externalities, and it's cheaper than nuclear. Therefore, it's ready. Also, your second sentence is a non-sequitur. If it really was true that it wasn't ready, that's all the more reason to throw even more money at it in order to figure out how to make it ready.
> That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...
How are you burning developing nations by subsidizing their energy such that they are financially better off doing it than not doing it? This reasoning does not make sense.
Developing nations do not care about your supposed externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they cannot afford in the literal sense.
> and it's cheaper than nuclear.
This is almost entirely the fault of deliberately crushing regulation... but that's a political choice not a technical one.
> Therefore, it's ready
Hardly. Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably priced, long-lived and efficient means of storage. Without this missing key, all the wind farms in the world will not keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow...
> This reasoning does not make sense.
You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech has come so very far... that is my point about it not being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in renewables before they can realistically replace energy production in mandatory environments, ie. environments that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.
> Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably priced, long-lived and efficient means of storage
You don't need storage to get the grid to 80%+ renewables. Storage as a blocker is a political talking point that is not substantiated and not true. Denmark is the case study that shows why. Also, storage costs are linear decreasing on a log scale.
> You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech has come so very far... that is my point about it not being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in renewables before they can realistically replace energy production in mandatory environments, ie. environments that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.
You're repeating the same things that I've already addressed. You're not "burning" poor countries if you're paying for it. You can't "burn" a country by making them financially better off. It is not a logically coherent point. Also, the tech is proven -- in actual practice, in reality, today, already implemented -- after you factor in the costs of externalities. And that picture will only get better and better as more money flows into R&D and the cost curve continues to decline as a direct consequence of that funding.
Then WE (the west) pay for the cost to eliminate the externalities. We will pay for them either way and the only reason they can't afford it is we stole all their shit.
> You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech has come so very far... that is my point about it not being ready yet.
Utter nonsense. Slap in a combined CSP + PV station and call it done. Where >50% of the people live it's more reliable than coal or nuclear, the marginal costs stay in the local economy rather than going to rio tinto and paying half (unconditionally, no loan) costs significantly less than the externalities that reach us from a coal plant.
There are areas where this doesn't work, but 1 coal, 1 wind, and 2 solar is cheaper than 2 coal, and having ~2 units of constant power and 1 unit of intermittent has more uses than 2 units of constant.
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-...
Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?
The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy production and will not stop just because the US made their goods more expensive for it's own citizens.
Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive.
So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.
The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...
The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to direct their spending to less polluting imports where possible.
The tariffs hurt the producer country if the cost of their imported goods becomes significantly more expensive than other sources, because then your own citizens will buy other goods. Yes, this does still hurt your own citizens, but it also hurts the producer country as well, if they can't find a market for their goods.
Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant consumer countries all impose similar tariffs. And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.
The problem always seems to be one of international action. If we wait for global agreement, I think we're screwed. Every time I hear the argument "there's no point in us acting while China is building a coal-fired power station every nanosecond", I think of this. Half the problem is that we're effectively exporting a good proportion of our emissions - we can't wash our hands of that and use it as an excuse not to clean up our own act as well. This seems like the obvious answer to those objections to me.
I think this is something that could be designed to work incrementally. Obviously the more countries do it the better, but every time you increase the cost of burning fossil fuels, more marginal renewable energy sources become economically viable.
> And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.
It's been a couple of decades and we're still waiting...
1. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions
2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak
Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would be catastrophic for the world wide economy.
So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping oil/gas/coal would be too expensive.
Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate, but for usage is good for the national security.
If a country has the army of robots needed to make it happen, then you have two problems.
I’m pretty sure you didn’t ask them if they were Ok with that sacrifice.
To quote C.S. Lewis - “ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”
In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not overthrowing the government.
Mind giving more than platitudes?
1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted.
2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that increases global warming by X and all methods of persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at some values of X and Y. You are considering the probability of and level of suffering of two events.
A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental damage.
There has to be some conditions in which it is morally justified to invade a country
A nice thing about this is it doesn't even punish poorer countries that much, despite the fact that they haven't transitioned as quickly as richer countries. Because they're poor, their economic activity is lower and they don't generate as much emissions, so the import duty would be lower.