Ask HN: Leaving out politics, which policies would stop/reverse global warming?
15 comments
I think it's almost painfully simple as a policy wonk question, really. Taxes. The wealthy industrialized nations of the world must come together, hammer out a framework for cooperation, and set a price for carbon pollution that will be phased in, both internally within their economies, and most importantly, as trade tariffs that incentivize the developing industrial economies where so much of the carbon pollution our standard of living is responsible for actually is produced.
I'm not sure on the ideal timeline but the taxes should start moderate and then gradually but steadily and painfully increase over a period of some time -- several decades, probably, until such point that energy derived from carbon-neutral sources is cheaper than energy derived from fossil fuels.
Throw the revenue generated at a mix of poverty relief to offset the humanitarian consequences of the above policy (which would be enormous without careful handling), subsidize clean energy developments, and whatever else comes to mind to offset the negatives or assist the process.
Doing this slowly and predictably is less of a shock treatment, and I do think this is an area where the market may well weave its "magic" given the appropriate incentives.
I'm not sure on the ideal timeline but the taxes should start moderate and then gradually but steadily and painfully increase over a period of some time -- several decades, probably, until such point that energy derived from carbon-neutral sources is cheaper than energy derived from fossil fuels.
Throw the revenue generated at a mix of poverty relief to offset the humanitarian consequences of the above policy (which would be enormous without careful handling), subsidize clean energy developments, and whatever else comes to mind to offset the negatives or assist the process.
Doing this slowly and predictably is less of a shock treatment, and I do think this is an area where the market may well weave its "magic" given the appropriate incentives.
Several decades is too long, if you believe the current projections. Too much damage will have been done. I would guess that the taxes need to phase in within a decade.
Add a search for the best ways to remove existing CO2 from the air, and something to do with the CO2 we recover, and... are we done yet?
Add a search for the best ways to remove existing CO2 from the air, and something to do with the CO2 we recover, and... are we done yet?
"I would guess that the taxes need to phase in within a decade."
Isn't 15 years the best case scenario? Implementing the tax 10 years from now likely wouldn't produce the results quickly enough. And without technologies fully able to replace existing ones it would just mean more expense stuff with the same emissions (I'm thinking of concrete specifically).
Isn't 15 years the best case scenario? Implementing the tax 10 years from now likely wouldn't produce the results quickly enough. And without technologies fully able to replace existing ones it would just mean more expense stuff with the same emissions (I'm thinking of concrete specifically).
I agree with this, although I'd lean more revenue neutral increase in externalizations of carbon consumption and reducing some other revenue source proportionately to avoid economic shocks.
First, we need to increase the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere.
In the last few days, I've been radicalized. I now believe the biggest problem is that our farming processes are net carbon emitters instead of carbon sinks. If we stop strip mining the soil and farming in an extractive process, we can take huge amounts of carbon back out of the air, and into new soil. I've been watching a lot of talks by Gabe Brown who makes a pretty darned convincing case.
Many of the problems "caused" by climate change are mis-attributed, and are actually the results of extractive farming processes that just don't work now that we've mined all the topsoil.
On the other side of the equation, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Saving energy in general helps.
Work from home needs to be normalized. Mass transit, particularly rail needs significant upgrades to coverage quality.
Financialization of the economy has lead to perverse incentives, and regulatory capture. Both need to be reversed.
The pandemic has show us a hint of what is possible when we divert from our culture of consuming for social status, instead of for quality of life.
We also need to keep funding adoption of renewable energy. We should also push as hard as we can on the various technologies that may result in actual working fusion power that can be replicated and produced in quantity large enough to supply the entire world.
A good stopgap source would be fission nuclear power. There are many good designs which can be produced in mass production, which allows more engineering talent to be applied in design and tracking and fixing of issues. The era of one off Nuclear Power Plants is over.
In the last few days, I've been radicalized. I now believe the biggest problem is that our farming processes are net carbon emitters instead of carbon sinks. If we stop strip mining the soil and farming in an extractive process, we can take huge amounts of carbon back out of the air, and into new soil. I've been watching a lot of talks by Gabe Brown who makes a pretty darned convincing case.
Many of the problems "caused" by climate change are mis-attributed, and are actually the results of extractive farming processes that just don't work now that we've mined all the topsoil.
On the other side of the equation, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Saving energy in general helps.
Work from home needs to be normalized. Mass transit, particularly rail needs significant upgrades to coverage quality.
Financialization of the economy has lead to perverse incentives, and regulatory capture. Both need to be reversed.
The pandemic has show us a hint of what is possible when we divert from our culture of consuming for social status, instead of for quality of life.
We also need to keep funding adoption of renewable energy. We should also push as hard as we can on the various technologies that may result in actual working fusion power that can be replicated and produced in quantity large enough to supply the entire world.
A good stopgap source would be fission nuclear power. There are many good designs which can be produced in mass production, which allows more engineering talent to be applied in design and tracking and fixing of issues. The era of one off Nuclear Power Plants is over.
"Mass transit, particularly rail needs significant upgrades to coverage quality."
You may be implying this, but not just coverage. How can I depend on a system when there are strikes, or even just incompetence, that render the system unusable for days or weeks?
You may be implying this, but not just coverage. How can I depend on a system when there are strikes, or even just incompetence, that render the system unusable for days or weeks?
This article makes a pretty straightforward argument that "clean electrification" (e.g., of the grid, of transportation, of buildings, etc.) should be the number one priority as it's both technologically feasible TODAY and has one of the highest impacts on carbon emissions of any other set of policies: https://www.volts.wtf/p/on-climate-policy-theres-one-main
There is no consensus I can think of. Reducing emissions seems obvious, but most industries and transport vehicles depend on burning fossil fuels. Governments should push for reduction of emission limits in industries and taxing at the border to foreign companies or countries that do not comply with some "enviromental care level", "waste per capita threshold" or "polution prevent level" or something like that [1][2].
What I'd also advice all "normal" citizens is to take their part in slowing the global warming by doing simple actions like:
- Recycling cardboard/crystal/plastics/metal.
- Buying local produce.
- Buying second hand stuff: books, clothes, etc.
- Buying hybrid cars, and when there was enough electric-stations, electric cars.
- Installing solar panels in your house.
- Improving the insulation of your house.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
[2] https://sensoneo.com/sensoneo-global-waste-index-2019/
What I'd also advice all "normal" citizens is to take their part in slowing the global warming by doing simple actions like:
- Recycling cardboard/crystal/plastics/metal.
- Buying local produce.
- Buying second hand stuff: books, clothes, etc.
- Buying hybrid cars, and when there was enough electric-stations, electric cars.
- Installing solar panels in your house.
- Improving the insulation of your house.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
[2] https://sensoneo.com/sensoneo-global-waste-index-2019/
[deleted]
"I'm curious if there on consensus on what the solution _should_ be -- if politics were not a problem."
"And it should be 'realistic'."
These seem to conflict. Unless you have a worldwide totalitarian regime, you need politics to convince and coordinate tha various groups of people (and even then you will have groups that disobey the majority, eg crime).
The main issue is consumption, which is driven by a modern consumerism based lifestyle and economy. Population is a major constraint related to that consumption which is more likely to be controllable, necessary to control even with other restrictions, and lead to a bigger impact than the individual consumption choices. Not to mention that we don't even know if our current population can be supported via sustainable means (likely not). The main issue is that people do not agree on population control and our current economy would likely collapse under it.
"And it should be 'realistic'."
These seem to conflict. Unless you have a worldwide totalitarian regime, you need politics to convince and coordinate tha various groups of people (and even then you will have groups that disobey the majority, eg crime).
The main issue is consumption, which is driven by a modern consumerism based lifestyle and economy. Population is a major constraint related to that consumption which is more likely to be controllable, necessary to control even with other restrictions, and lead to a bigger impact than the individual consumption choices. Not to mention that we don't even know if our current population can be supported via sustainable means (likely not). The main issue is that people do not agree on population control and our current economy would likely collapse under it.
I find the Green New Deal to be a great start.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocas...
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocas...
From that article: “Altogether, the Green New Deal is a loose framework. It does not lay out guidance on how to implement these policies.”
The recent EU green deal (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807) seems more concrete (but of course, also just as “not passed a vote”)
The recent EU green deal (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807) seems more concrete (but of course, also just as “not passed a vote”)
Distributed and complementary small cities in place of big centers.
Check out this classic New Yorker article. [1] Here's how it starts:
"My wife and I got married right out of college, in 1978. We were young and naïve and unashamedly idealistic, and we decided to make our first home in a utopian environmentalist community in New York State. For seven years, we lived, quite contentedly, in circumstances that would strike most Americans as austere in the extreme: our living space measured just seven hundred square feet, and we didn't have a dishwasher, a garbage disposal, a lawn, or a car. We did our grocery shopping on foot, and when we needed to travel longer distances we used public transportation. Because space at home was scarce, we seldom acquired new possessions of significant size. Our electric bills worked out to about a dollar a day."
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/10/18/green-manhatta...
"My wife and I got married right out of college, in 1978. We were young and naïve and unashamedly idealistic, and we decided to make our first home in a utopian environmentalist community in New York State. For seven years, we lived, quite contentedly, in circumstances that would strike most Americans as austere in the extreme: our living space measured just seven hundred square feet, and we didn't have a dishwasher, a garbage disposal, a lawn, or a car. We did our grocery shopping on foot, and when we needed to travel longer distances we used public transportation. Because space at home was scarce, we seldom acquired new possessions of significant size. Our electric bills worked out to about a dollar a day."
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/10/18/green-manhatta...
if politics were not a problem.
Interesting thought exercise. In a world where we solve everything through engineering and politics do not exist, I could see:
- Engineering homes and offices to be underground in most places so the earth insulates the homes, giving the walls a constant temperature and reducing the need for HVAC. Use geothermal heating and cooling where possible. Use solar and other forms of energy storage beyond that. This frees up land for other things and takes a good deal of the load off the energy grid. Water table? Yup, there too. Engineer around it and utilize it. I want adjustable LED lights in the aquifers and that is to be my office window. Some will want natural sunlight. This can be engineered with pipes, mirrors and lenses. This system can even power underground protected solar panels should the above ground weather get extreme.
- Replace most home and office appliances with appliances designed for ships or mobile homes. They cost more but operate much more efficiently. The greatest benefit is to your solar+battery storage.
- Build a vast array of distributed underground human made aquifers. Do not build pipes. Build the same water distribution that is under Rome using modern equipment. Bonus if the equipment is fully automated and solar powered. Seal these tunnels with a material that is anti-microbial, anti-fungal. Use bots/drones to fly through these tunnels, inspecting for cracks, mold, etc...
- Move all aqueducts underground. Currently hundreds of millions of gallons of water evaporate daily. This will become more problematic if global climate change means hotter weather. The aqueduct feeding southern California loses 44 million gallons per day alone.
- Build multi-level under-ground tunnels. Lower levels move from continent to continent. Higher levels state/province. Next levels up, city to city. Highest levels, local "city streets". Build giant vertical tunnels for waste disposal, then network these vertical tunnels and use the heat generated from them to create energy and energy-free air-flow. Study ants to see how this works.
- Engineer homes and offices to last for thousands of years. Expensive, but this stops some deforestation and allows families to pass on homes that will last for hundreds of generations. I realize this kills off a few industries.
- Eliminate plastic. Everything must be made from material that is easy to recycle / re-purpose. Very few forms of plastic can actually be recycled. The recycle logo was hijacked by the resin symbol look for the number so people often recycle things that will not ultimately be recycled.
- Build greenhouses where above-ground houses and offices once stood. Build multi-level underground greenhouses using solar power and recycled/recaptured water and atmospheric water generators that are above ground.
- Capture gasses that cause global warming and put them to use. Not just Co2, there are many gasses that cause warming. Find a use for all of them. Co2 can be used in special mixtures of concrete for building the underground facilities.
- Eliminate above ground power transmission lines. Each "pod" or city unit must have its own distributed power grid using every earth friendly option available. PG&E a power company has starting doing this in California, albeit above ground, but getting rid of some transmission lines and implementing solar+generator stations in heavily forested areas.
I suppose none of these are new ideas. Ancient Egypt was a good example of building things in a way that reduce carbon emissions and last for a long time. The temples under the pyramids are still in excellent condition. The underground aqueducts in Rome are a great example of incredible engineering and utilizing gravity. In hind-sight, they made the layers of cities too thin after the volcanic eruptions and some areas are collapsing into the old tunnels. I based these suggestions on if politics were not a problem and in my interpretation that also means money is not a problem. These suggestions are based on everyone working together to keep the earth habitable for a longer period of time.
Interesting thought exercise. In a world where we solve everything through engineering and politics do not exist, I could see:
- Engineering homes and offices to be underground in most places so the earth insulates the homes, giving the walls a constant temperature and reducing the need for HVAC. Use geothermal heating and cooling where possible. Use solar and other forms of energy storage beyond that. This frees up land for other things and takes a good deal of the load off the energy grid. Water table? Yup, there too. Engineer around it and utilize it. I want adjustable LED lights in the aquifers and that is to be my office window. Some will want natural sunlight. This can be engineered with pipes, mirrors and lenses. This system can even power underground protected solar panels should the above ground weather get extreme.
- Replace most home and office appliances with appliances designed for ships or mobile homes. They cost more but operate much more efficiently. The greatest benefit is to your solar+battery storage.
- Build a vast array of distributed underground human made aquifers. Do not build pipes. Build the same water distribution that is under Rome using modern equipment. Bonus if the equipment is fully automated and solar powered. Seal these tunnels with a material that is anti-microbial, anti-fungal. Use bots/drones to fly through these tunnels, inspecting for cracks, mold, etc...
- Move all aqueducts underground. Currently hundreds of millions of gallons of water evaporate daily. This will become more problematic if global climate change means hotter weather. The aqueduct feeding southern California loses 44 million gallons per day alone.
- Build multi-level under-ground tunnels. Lower levels move from continent to continent. Higher levels state/province. Next levels up, city to city. Highest levels, local "city streets". Build giant vertical tunnels for waste disposal, then network these vertical tunnels and use the heat generated from them to create energy and energy-free air-flow. Study ants to see how this works.
- Engineer homes and offices to last for thousands of years. Expensive, but this stops some deforestation and allows families to pass on homes that will last for hundreds of generations. I realize this kills off a few industries.
- Eliminate plastic. Everything must be made from material that is easy to recycle / re-purpose. Very few forms of plastic can actually be recycled. The recycle logo was hijacked by the resin symbol look for the number so people often recycle things that will not ultimately be recycled.
- Build greenhouses where above-ground houses and offices once stood. Build multi-level underground greenhouses using solar power and recycled/recaptured water and atmospheric water generators that are above ground.
- Capture gasses that cause global warming and put them to use. Not just Co2, there are many gasses that cause warming. Find a use for all of them. Co2 can be used in special mixtures of concrete for building the underground facilities.
- Eliminate above ground power transmission lines. Each "pod" or city unit must have its own distributed power grid using every earth friendly option available. PG&E a power company has starting doing this in California, albeit above ground, but getting rid of some transmission lines and implementing solar+generator stations in heavily forested areas.
I suppose none of these are new ideas. Ancient Egypt was a good example of building things in a way that reduce carbon emissions and last for a long time. The temples under the pyramids are still in excellent condition. The underground aqueducts in Rome are a great example of incredible engineering and utilizing gravity. In hind-sight, they made the layers of cities too thin after the volcanic eruptions and some areas are collapsing into the old tunnels. I based these suggestions on if politics were not a problem and in my interpretation that also means money is not a problem. These suggestions are based on everyone working together to keep the earth habitable for a longer period of time.
So, in the US, I don't believe Republicans either believe in global warming, or believe it's man-made, or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But let's say we are only talking about the people who believe in global warming/caused by humans -- here in the US and around the world -- what is the best policy/policies?
And it should be 'realistic'. That is, we've seen that we can 'handle' a pandemic with 'only' a few million dead. Any proposed solution(s) should keep the expected deaths to < 1 million people.