US quits Paris climate pact

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by rayiner on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:19PM (#14464868)

The CFC problem was a narrow one, and the Montreal protocol was implemented a decade after development started on CFC alternatives. At the time Montreal was implemented, there was a clear picture of how to get from point A to point B. Climate change is in comparison a moon shot. We don't know what will work and how it'll work. There's not some single thing we can ban and fix the problem. It calls for structural change and changes in peoples' way of life and the political system can't achieve that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by chadgeidel on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:39PM (#14465071)

"climate change is in comparison a moon shot"

This couldn't be more apt. It took a nation-state level of engineering to make it work, but the science (broadly speaking) was pretty well known. I believe that a similar nation-state scale funded engineering project to address climate change.

Unfortunately - to torture the analogy even further, we don't currently have a moon base and we've not sent a human outside of LEO since then. Maybe a grand nation-state effort is doomed to fail? I hope not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by epistasis on Thursday June 01, 2017 @06:29PM (#14465494)

I respectfully disagree on this. The moon shot was a specific engineering challenge, with a clearly defined goal.

Decarbonizing our economy is vastly different in two ways: 1) a multitude of approaches and engineering solutions rather than a single path, 2) huge amounts of industry across the world (10s of millions of people) rather than a small (thousands) focused team. A nation-state effort like a moon shot is doomed to fail at something like this. We need lots of experimentation, lots of failures, and a few successes.

This is better solved through market approaches. This is what we've been implementing over the past years. We subsidize carbon neutral tech through tax credits (negative tax) rather than placing a positive tax on carbon emission. This is less than ideal, but at least it equalizes things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by api on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:26PM (#14466725)

Climate change isn't a moon shot. We know how to fix it. Tax carbon emissions and provide tax benefits and subsidies to convert energy infrastructure to solar, wind, and nuclear power, and to convert the automobile fleet to run on electricity.

None of the technology required for this is magical. It's all developed and proven and deployed. It's on the market right now. It just needs to be scaled and we need to get over the adoption hurdle. Once that happens it gets exponentially cheaper. Compare the price of a flat panel display today to one 20 years ago and now look at the price history curves for solar panels and batteries.

Once we get over the adoption curve this stuff will be cheaper than fossil fuels. That's how industrial scaling works.

You might have been able to make your argument 20 years ago. The situation with fossil fuels vs. alternatives today is a lot closer to the situation with CFCs at the time of the Montreal accord. Back then conservatives cried about how we were no longer going to have refrigeration or air conditioning and today they're crying about how doing something about climate change means going back to pre-industrial times. It's total nonsense. EVs are better than internal combustion cars.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by epistasis on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:38PM (#14465063)

Citation needed. Solar, wind, EV and now even electrical storage are being jump started with tax credits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US quits Paris climate pact by zzalpha on Thursday June 01, 2017 @06:36PM (#14465547)

Solar, wind, EV and now even electrical storage are being jump started with tax credits.

Were. At least if Trump gets his way:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

[ Parent | on HN ]