If you want to do the right thing long term, provide products that do the right thing and market them on a personal level.
There are other reasons Tesla started with a high-end model. Because building the cars was going to take a lot of R&D, Tesla supported the cost by starting with fancy sports cars, which have a better ROI, and then used the technology to manufacture less pricey cars later on.
Source (ctrl + f "the business plan"): http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-lif...
True, I didn't mean to imply it was the only reason - more that it's good example of appealing to human self-interest to fix a larger problem.
When you are building a company, being able to sell a product is more important than just building a world class product.
A lot of other companies went that way but there was no result out of it. There is a reason for the way Tesla went :) They needed a bucket load of money to finance building a mass produced vehicle.
The worst-case scenario of global warming (which might be inevitable given the current CO2 levels) is a 216 foot rise in sea level [1]. This will cause mass migration and be extremely expensive and unpleasant for society as a whole, but poses little threat of ending humanity.
NASA's JPL did a great lecture a few months ago talking about the current scientific consensus on the consequences of global warming - it's well worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s
[1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-se...
But with increased CO2 there's also increasing acidification. So the plankton dies, coral dies, mollusks die (their shells erode). The food web at sea dies.... as does the food for a decent fraction of the planet. Acid rain causes more damage, food production becomes tougher... especially on the decreasing number of acres above flood level. Much of the most productive farm land in the world would be inundated with acidic salty water.
As an analogy, think about what happens if a deadly infectious bacteria or virus "wins" by infecting every human on earth. If there is no cure and no human has an adaptation or mutation to stop it, by winning it has sowed the seeds of its own destruction because there are no more hosts to infect.
It is easy to imagine several scenarios where an all out war for dwindling resources can lead to extinction.
I don't understand why you're being so myopic? The worst case isn't a few people having to buy new homes, it's mass extinction and war. Which may as well be total nuclear war, as far as you or I can predict.
First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. Most reasonable estimates suggest on the order of single-digit percent productivity losses for society over the next several decades. Substantial and unfortunate, but not existence-threatening, and in fact not even enough to outweigh reasonably expectable productivity gains from technological development. There are much more serious existential risks to humanity than climate change.
Second off, no one has enough information about the global state of the world that "just think about the big picture" is actually good, actionable advice. People only have enough information and processing power to do local maximization, and this actually works exceptionally well. If you want whatever arbitrary "big picture" stuff you're into to factor into people's decision-making process, the best way to do that is things like tax incentives. How well this works is up for debate, but it's certainly better than vague appeals to "save the environment".
I'm not sure what you're calling the "death economy". Could you explain that further?
A bold claim indeed.
Aka migration causes war X which due to _ spiraled into WWIII. Granted the world without global warming could alos end randomly as well so you can just say unknown unknowns are always a risk even if it does mean a slightly less stable geopolitical environment that does not nessisarily mean anything terrible happens.
you do realize that initiating nuclear war is suicide, right? the u.s. took advantage of the only chance of actually using one because they were the only nuclear power at the time.
Given there are plenty of suicidal humans, that's not entirely comforting.
What is the variance of those estimators?
("Honey, if we get a solar roof it will help the planet, but we'll have to put junior in the cheaper preschool to pay for it. Whatya think?")
You aren't wrong, but solutions have to be economically viable in the present.
There's some threshold people can pay to improve their lives (and potentially all lives) in the future -- but the difference between a standard roof and Tesla roof and battery is like 70k for me. I just redid my roof last year, cost me $14k -- and it's a very nice roof. Spending $85k on a roof... that's about a quarter the price of my house.
When it's a 2x price difference, I'd consider it. Realistically, even factoring in the cost of the electricity it will offset, it has to be similar in cost to a conventional roof for most people to invest. I think about one hail storm wiping out an $85k investment... and what insurance rates go up to in order to support this roof... and I just cringe.
Also keep in mind... supply and demand. As more people use solar... the price for electricity -- all electricity -- will go down. Since my electric bill from the power company is likely to drop (in the relative short-term), that lowers my incentive to pay a premium. We're likely to see a spike in oil and gas as prices for those plummet too... We'll need government to artificially inflate the cost of these to remind people about the environmental damage, or we'll do a lot of damage if the switch to solar happens too quickly.
Anyway... it's cool, just way out of my price point... and I feel like I make a fairly good living and tend to be a bit leftist on environmental issues... for your average Red-Stater, no way they're going to even consider paying a price like this. Looking forward to the "3" version of this in a decade or so, when the price drops to about 1/3 of what it is now, I'm sold!
If people are incentivized to get solar roofs for personal benefits and it happens to also help the "Life Economy," this is good. Especially because more people will get them when they're framed in terms of what an individual gains from installing it, not what Humanity gains.
They're downsizing.
If you want to invent tomorrow's computer today, you can do it by spending a lot of money per unit. That was thinking at Xerox Parc and at SRI before it.
Tying it together, often the only people who can afford and bootstrap early prototypes are wealthy people. Elon has tapped into this strategy by making the early prototypes of his cars and shingles sexy so wealthy people can signal to other wealthy people that they are high-minded and forward thinking people.
Good.
If we can use that to bootstrap the production of cheaper shingle/panels for billions of people in the long run, we're better off in the long run.
Nevertheless, I agree with your fundamental premise that downsizing, possession sharing and clever recycling is the best solution for most people. Personally speaking, I'd much rather live a life where I share my personal possessions and consume as little as possible. Call me a hippy, but I could care less for owning most shit. It doesn't make me happy for the most part.
I'd also love to see us get away from heating/cooling buildings and research heating/cooling bodies with interesting clothing. Again, I think targeting high-minded/forward-thinking wealthy people is a good strategy for cultivating an important industries and products like this.
> Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy.
Are you serious? This doesn't pass the smell test. This sounds like something from a PR firm hired by Tesla to "evangelize" on social media.
You need some Dayman:
Aligning the economic incentives to promote an outcome is much more effective at getting that outcome
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS
I think people should instead be thinking about how we can save the existence of the entire species, and all other higher order forms of life on earth, rather than focusing on their individual tax breaks, savings, or other trivial concerns. Yes, your cash flow is rendered quite trivial if life on Earth ends.
Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy. The value here is in the benefit to life, concern over state monopolized currencies clearly facilitates an economy of death.