Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
1) 'Solving' the climate crisis was always the easy part.
2) As with anything else, you'd defer to those with the specialized knowledge.
3) You'd do what works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The real challenge has been the 'implications' of the solution, as borne out in the PBS FRONTLINE special.
5) I can confidently surmise that all your reservations about climate 'solutions' were crafted by the people who are showcased on the program, paid for by the people showcased on the program.
6) The 'fundamental human nature' aspect will fall to the same type of people who crafted climate denial.
7) 72-hours is all they need. You can see it with what the media did with Ukraine.
8) The market place is where it's going to happen or not.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
1) COVID wasn't a product sold on the global market.
2) There weren't COVID cartels and trade organizations.
3) There weren't carnival barker lobbyists from the Big- COVID financing congressional election and re-election campaigns.) Big-COVID wasn't President.
Big-COVID wasn't White House Chief of Staff.
Big-COVID wasn't Secretary of State, Energy, Representatives, Senators.
COVID really isn't germane to a climate conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The plan would be to get off fossil-fuel as fast as we could and remove extant carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere, down to at least 350ppm.
The Green New Deal would be 'free' compared to what business as usual will cost.
5) Beware of 'truths.'
6) Those who 'knew' about climate change already understood that we faced doing the 'impossible' as not doing it would take us to the 'unthinkable.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Exxon had 'owned' the reality of the situation, rather than obfuscate, we would have had an early start on resolving the issue. The USA could have had a national energy strategy. Public education could have educated. Bring the full force of innovation and R&D to the table. Ease ourselves off the fossil-fuel teat. Buy time. Move investments. Get rich differently. Demand for oil would decline incrementally. There would be no void to fill. With alternates, people wouldn't touch the stuff. Exxon was already into photovoltaics. They would have been rewarded (I rewarded Atlantic Richfield Corporation ( ARCO ) for theirs! ). Exxon was in lithium ( that's workin' out pretty good right now! ). Exxon is already in a criminal trial in a US District Court ( Juliana vs United States ), We'll see how that goes.
7) It takes about 72-hours to start a war, whether with a country, drugs, or heating planet. That part's easy.
8) The economy IS where we'll do it, or not. Carrots are better than sticks. Sticks suffice when there's no options. President Woodrow Wilson suspended the 1st-Amendment in 1918, when he thought the security of the nation swung in the balance. Machiavellian. Art of War.
|
1-3 What's your point? Mine was that a good solution isn't myopic, and you didn't present any evidence to refute that claim.
The reason I mention Covid is to highlight the difference in personality that causes our differing opinions. There are those of us that have extremely high faith in the ability of experts to accurately understand extremely complex systems AND political machines to create effective solutions. Then there are those of us that have little faith in experts ability to predict, and political machines to efficiently solve problems.
Tangentially, I tend to believe I'm most able to affect outcomes given situations I encounter, whereas the opposite of my personality believes they are mostly helpless to affect outcomes, and highly dependent on systems to determine their future.
As an aside, Big Oil is big because it met the market requirements of consumers, not because we got duped into some inferior product that nobody would want.
In hindsight, Exxon was foolish to have wasted so much money on researching something which is outside their area of concern. They simply could say that they are in the business of extracting petroleum products and selling it, and if someone doesn't want their product, they'll sell it to someone else that does. I have no idea why they waste so much effort even stepping into politics because it's ultimately pointless.
4- That's not a plan, it's a somewhat arbitrary goal.
5- Similar to the scientific process, truth seeking isn't an endpoint, but a process of moving towards it.
6- Even if we assume all that is true, that some knew the cost and the imperative, do you think they could have significantly affected the outcome? How?
7- Nobody is going to wage war against pleasantly warming outdoor thermostat. That's why human motivation has to factor into the solution.
8- Sticks never work long-term. Only so many people go to Gulag until you run out of people.
Regarding your other comments, some of which are obvious, some of which I agree, and some of which are absurd. You cannot force innovation. If I tell someone to invent harder, it doesn't work. Innovation mostly depends on time, as every new development is built upon all prior achievement. Public education is already uber-liberal. There's no kids in the US that have gone K-12 without constantly being pressured to develop climate anxiety. We'll pay for that unhealthy anxiety.
As I'm always saying, the best way to facilitate innovation is to make the cost of the behavior you want to change become more expensive over time. Gradually increase the cost of fossil fuels, and people will figure out an infinite number of ways to make due with less of the stuff. All other schemes are idiotic by comparison.