Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by fulafel on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:00AM
(#13234956)
It's easy to imagine many proposals that don't restrict access to washing machines. For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one. We generally have the mechanisms to implement binding international agreements about these things, it's just a question of political will.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by CountSessine on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:47AM
(#13235895)
We generally have the mechanisms to implement binding international agreements about these things
Binding? Name one that doesn't involve nuclear weapon proliferation.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by dispose13432 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:20AM
(#13235792)
>For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one
You can't Carbon tax people by income (because people don't pollute directly). You'll target polluters.
So you go to Apple and tell them that they emitted so many kg of CO2, pay ... tax,
Which will undoubtedly find its way to rising phone prices, which means (poor) people don't get nice things.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by fulafel on Thursday December 22, 2016 @10:09AM
(#13237675)
There are several alternative ways to address this, for example products bought by consumers might account toward their CO2 emissions. Or just apply the CO2 tax to companies directly.
Anyway, let's not get lost in the details, I was just offering a trivial counterexample against the claim that
> Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine"
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by thatfrenchguy on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:59AM
(#13235928)
> Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine" or similar restrictions on the basic benefits of industrialization.
Probably more like "No you don't get a dryer" though, as a washing machine can use less water ?
Hans Rosling has a very good argument that we need a certain minimum amount of energy usage if we want both social and population stability. Wasted energy in the developed world is an interesting discussion, but if we want to address climate change the focus has to be on the much larger population of the world that is trying to rapidly increase their energy needs.
> without confusing it with lowering the standard of living
That's precisely the problem. Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine" or similar restrictions on the basic benefits of industrialization.