
Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-mitigation-co-benefits-1.5205552
======
ggm
The problem is not the general economics, the problem is the vested interests.
Most upsides are qualitatively important and improve ordinary life but the
profit is diffuse. Most abatement cost is huge incumbents like oil and coal
and car industry and tax income. Their costs are being resisted and they
outspend everyone else.

~~~
trentnix
On the contrary, most changes proposed reduce the quality of life, reduce
choices, and require rationing and rationed distribution of some sort. It is
consistently pointed out that the first world quality of life is a _problem_
and a growing population (which is almost entirely the product of people
living longer, considering first-world birth rates are abysmal) is a problem.
And it is rarely acknowledged that developing nations contribute greatly to
pollution and curbing that would almost certainly handicap their growth (and
likely result in various forms of protest, violence, and war).

To simply assign resistance to how humanity uses and consumes energy to _oil
and coal and car industry and tax income_ is absurd. _General economics_ is
the only surefire way to get the changes we are told are necessary entrenched
in society and our way of life. And that means it's technology, not government
control and regulation, that is the solution that should be pursued.

Carrots might work. Sticks won't.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Disagree vociferously.

1) A carbon tax is perhaps the most common proposed solution to the climate
change problem. It would increase quality of life, not reduce choice nor
induce rationing. Currently, burning carbon imposes externalities that are not
paid by the emitter. This means that some of the carbon emitted is emitted
even though it provides more costs than benefits. A carbon tax and dividend
INCREASES economic efficiency by ensuring that CO2 is generated only when
benefits exceed costs.

2) oil & gas are extremely useful for a lot of different things, and there's
still a lot of it left in the ground. Technology improvements will only shift
usage; it will still be used for something. Only a "stick" such as a carbon
tax can ensure that such usage is efficient.

~~~
oldpond
Carbon tax is pure economic foolishness. Imagine there's one pipe with smoke
coming out of it, and imagine there's another pipe with a lever. If you pull
the lever, bags of money will come pouring out of the pipe. That's the carbon
tax. The thinking is that the pipe with the smoke will stop belching, but it
won't. There's no direct connection between the pipes. We HOPE drivers will
drive less if the carbon tax hits their pocket book, but there is no
guarantee. It's like changing the interest rate and hoping the economy will
improve.

~~~
Angostura
> There's no direct connection between the pipes. We HOPE drivers will drive
> less.

There are quite a few studies that show that this actually happens. You can
have a look at Google Scholar if you want.

Don;t forget, its not just 'will drive less', it is 'will prefer lower carbon
alternatives', etc. Fee and dividend basically makes it expensive to pollute
and puts cash in consumers' pockets so that they can afford cleaner
alternatives.

~~~
oldpond
I think we should place a royalty on the pipelines, not the pumps. Take 10%
from everything that flows down the pipeline, and use that money to drive us
into the clean energy age. Where else are we going to get the funds to fix
this enormous problem?

The problem with using consumer taxes to fund these things is that the
consumer has to consume the planet in order to save the planet. If I don't pay
enviro-levy taxes at the cash register, my district can't afford waste
removal. If I don't buy enough gasoline, we won't collect enough carbon tax to
pay for these wetlands we need to build.

~~~
bryanlarsen
In the end the consumer pays for everything, so there's very little difference
placing the tax on the producer or consumer.

------
asterix_pano
If we simply stop eating meat, it would be better for us (less cancers due to
red meat and pesticides), for the environment (much less pollution, resources
consumed, deforestation, CO2 and methane emissions - more biodiversity) and
for the animals... so in the end it is obviously way cheaper and better but we
always find excuses not to do it.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
> less cancers due to red meat

This is the first I’ve heard of this, how strong is the link?

~~~
vlan0
>Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What
does this mean exactly? In the case of red meat, the classification is based
on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations
between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong
mechanistic evidence.

>Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between
exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the
observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be
ruled out.[1]

## Bonus content on processed meats ##

>Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does
this mean? This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that
the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological
studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

>In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient
evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes
colorectal cancer.

[1] [https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-
meat/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

~~~
npongratz
>Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans.

They classified coffee, mate, and "very hot beverages" the same way. I'll
worry about red meat the exact same way I worry about coffee: not at all, and
enjoy every bit I consume.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens)

------
hannob
I somehow doubt that people who aren't convinced by "we'll keep a planet where
humans can live" will be convinced by "more benefits".

~~~
inflatableDodo
Am reminded of this cartoon -
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CndyvnOXgAAoE7Q.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CndyvnOXgAAoE7Q.jpg)

~~~
makerofspoons
That cartoon is in the main article.

~~~
inflatableDodo
I think I should probably remember to read these article thingies before
commenting.

------
ryanmercer
There's not going to be anything cheap about fighting climate change. We need
to start removing 35-40 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
_immediately_ if we want to retard, and begin to reverse, what we've been
adding the past several decades. To do that, we're going to have to cease
using fossil fuels entirely. China gets 70%~ of their power from just coal and
is building hundreds of new coal plants, the United States gets about 60% from
fossil fuels (about half of which is coal). China is adding millions of new
drivers to the road annually, they have so many new drivers that there is a
lottery system to 'win' a spot to test for your license.

Then we have the problem of 1.3-1.5 billion cows. An average cow produces 70
and 120 kg of methane a year. That's 91,000,000 metric tons of methane.
Methane is roughly 30x more potent at trapping heat. So conservatively that is
2.73 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent which doesn't include the fuels used to
transport them and their feed, the fertilizer manufacturing to fertilize the
fields that grow the grain they eat, the cost of refrigerating/freezing their
meat...

Over-fishing and acidification is killing off large seaweed and kelp 'forests'
in coastal waters, those 'forests' handle a good deal of carbon sequestration.

\---

Let's just look at a hypothetical. Say we outright banned ALL air travel:

Something like 95 billion gallons of aviation fuel was used last year, that
has gone up every year without fail for a decade - it was only 66 billion in
2009. Depending on the type of fuel you're looking at 0.55+ gigatonnes there
last year.

A tree, highly dependent upon species, can absorb as much as 48 pounds of CO2
per year. That means you need at least 36.3 million trees.

Healthy forest has 40 to 60 trees per acre. That means at least 946,031 square
miles of forest, just to offset last year's commercial air travel.

There's nothing easy about fighting climate change. :(

~~~
shanxS
Why is this being downvoted?

~~~
makerofspoons
Because people don't like to confront the reality of the problem.

“It is worse, much worse, than you think.” - David Wallace-Wells, The
Uninhabitable Earth

~~~
hackeraccount
Worse still - the problem is worse then you think and the solutions are more
complicated then you suppose. If you stopped all air travel it might make
emissions go up. It might reduce economic growth that makes implementing other
fixes harder not easier.

There's a reason all of these emissions are produced - it's pleasant to
imagine that it's all about things that don't really matter - does some rich
guy get a sports car or an econobox - but I genuinely don't believe it's that
simple. Instead it's a series of complicated decisions about productivity,
value and risk.

------
sunkenvicar
I skimmed the article and didn’t see a single mention of nuclear.

The article can be safely ignored - nuclear is the only feasible solution
regardless of your position on global warming.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Sometimes these comments make me think there are nuclear shills being paid to
write overly pro nuclear comments. I agree we need way more nuclear, however
its costly and very slow to bring online, so it clearly won't decarbonize our
economies in the 5 to 10 year time span. Anyone who thinks it's the only
solution is just ignorant of the energy industry.

Like seriously, parent commenter, tell me how new build nuclear is doing in
the USA. How about South Carolina's massive debacle? You think that is the
only feasible path forward?

~~~
naasking
> I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring
> online

The other poster is correct that this is a regulatory issue. Other countries
can bring nuclear power plants online in under 5 years, where it takes almost
15 in the US IIRC.

------
man2525
I think that even the idea of climate change turns many people off. It's
likely not a binary choice, but altruism and egoism play a role in people's
opinions about big issues. Whether it's imagination or experience, the
altruists believe in something in addition to a sense of self that overrides
repugnance or disgust to situations which lack an obvious means of individual
control or guaranteed end results.

------
panzagl
What health conditions are caused by climate change? The article shows a kid
wearing a mask, but air quality is not climate.

~~~
adrianN
The main problem near term is tropical diseases spreading. Eventually we'll
have trouble feeding people and will likely have to abandon some regions
because temperatures become deadly without AC.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_h...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_human_health)

------
kmonsen
Action on climate change is not about a reasonable discuss. I mean we can save
the future of the earth for lets say worst case 20% of our productivity and it
is not like the money will be just gone, it will just go to other people.

And that is the point, the people that are benefitting from the current system
wants to do so as long as possible and are powerful enough that governments
listens mostly to them.

Also it is a coordination problem Moloch style:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-
moloch/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

~~~
dashundchen
When people fret about the economic cost of transitioning to a low-carbon
economy in the US, I think of two things:

1\. The enormous amount of low-hanging fruit for energy savings in the US -
huge poorly insulated houses, fuel guzzling cars and development patterns,
ancient fossil fuel plants subsidized past their useful lives

2\. Tens of trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we were somehow ok with that money going up into smoke (or the pockets of
the defense industry), then surely we should be able to spend the same amount
transforming the economy into a sustainable one and rebuilding our
infrastructure, with the bonus of a huge domestic stimulus and job creation
and technology program.

We have the technology today, we know the solutions, the problem is political.

~~~
kmonsen
Yeah, that is what I was trying say. The money is available but we choose to
spend it on other things that seem less important but have powerful vested
interests behind it.

If we spend it on fighting climate change instead someone else will get that
money, and the people currently getting it is not going to let them happen
without a fight.

------
workingpatrick
Re: the title - How could it be MORE beneficial than we think? Who thinks that
literally saving the world is anything less than highly beneficial?

~~~
midwestcode
corporations

------
marsRoverDev
"more beneficial than we think"

I mean, apart from the whole not dying in a mass extinction event within our
lifetimes...

~~~
Camas
Who is predicting a mass extinction event within our lifetimes?

e: I'm aware of the Holocene extinction. And as far as I'm aware there are no
credible predictions that Humans will share the same fate within our
lifetimes, which the parent was implying.

~~~
MrGLaDOS
Multiple groups are. Albeit for insects and coral reef, not for humans.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-
insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature)

[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/37/13736.full.pdf](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/37/13736.full.pdf)

~~~
makerofspoons
There are researchers starting to connect the dots on near-term human
extinction. A good summary is 'The Uninhabitable Earth' by David Wallace-
Wells: [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-
earth-...](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-
hot-for-humans-annotated.html?gtm=top)

------
filereaper
I think the all the proposals inflight and their associated debates are
warranted.

I've read that the oceans end up absorbing majority of the CO2 emitted, if
that's the case, I haven't seen anything (to my knowledge) that goes towards
accelerating this in a sustained way for the marine ecosystem.

The oceans are far larger and I suspect will have less issues with rolling out
methods of coping with CO2 i.e won't disrupt jobs or or ways of life.

Does it make sense to attack the problem that way? It has the potential to
scale much more quickly. Is there a company attacking this sorts of issues
like SolarCity?

~~~
gwbas1c
Right now increased CO2 in our air is making the ocean more acidic.
(Basically, go buy a plain seltzer and then let it go flat. That acidic taste
is what's happening to our oceans.)

I vaguely remember a carbon capture scheme that takes advantage of this. I
think it basically accelerates the act of carbon settling in the bottom of the
ocean as a particulate matter.

(Granted, I'm not an expert and someone who knows more can probably explain
more.)

