• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How concerned are you about the climate impacts your child will witness or experience?

How concerned are you about the climate impacts your child will witness or experience?

  • Extremely concerned

    Votes: 17 20.5%

  • Very concerned

    Votes: 24 28.9%

  • Somewhat concerned

    Votes: 16 19.3%

  • Not that concerned

    Votes: 18 21.7%

  • Not at all concerned

    Votes: 8 9.6%
  • Total voters
    83
scooter84 said:
Sorry - I am not smart enough to know all the answers of "how" - I am just the idea guy! But I do understand what motivates people - including business leaders - and that is money. A big deterrent to greater use of, and investment in, renewable energy has always been that it is more expensive than fossil fuels. When fossil fuels costs rise you see people turning to renewable sources. When there are big tax incentives for using renewal sources, or for driving EVs, or whatever, you see people doing those things.
Click to expand...
I guess that's ok for you to admit, but it seems like a cop out to post the magic wand question, kind of poo poo most responses about changing our core economic system and then say well I don't really have any specific solutions either.

In the cost of renewables compared to fossil fuels...governments world wide are propping up cheap fossil fuels with subsidies despite all the promises to cut carbon, all the dire predictions on the future of climate and the unprecedented natural disasters happening every month. Somethings gotta give man.

www.weforum.org

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies soared to record heights in 2022

World leaders pumped a record $1 trillion of subsidies into fossil fuels in 2022. Subsidies for gas and electricity doubled, while oil subsidies rose 85%.
www.weforum.org www.weforum.org

Despite constant warnings from the scientific community about the dangers of the climate crisis and extreme weather events from devastating flooding in Pakistan to record-breaking heat waves worldwide, world leaders still subsidized fossil fuel consumption with a record more than $1 trillion in 2022.
Click to expand...
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Sure then let’s do that. Are you voting for politicians who will do that?
Click to expand...

birdman said:
I guess that's ok for you to admit, but it seems like a cop out to post the magic wand question, kind of poo poo most responses about changing our core economic system and then say well I don't really have any specific solutions either.

In the cost of renewables compared to fossil fuels...governments world wide are propping up cheap fossil fuels with subsidies despite all the promises to cut carbon, all the dire predictions on the future of climate and the unprecedented natural disasters happening every month. Somethings gotta give man.

www.weforum.org

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies soared to record heights in 2022

World leaders pumped a record $1 trillion of subsidies into fossil fuels in 2022. Subsidies for gas and electricity doubled, while oil subsidies rose 85%.
www.weforum.org www.weforum.org
Click to expand...
So I have to have all the specific answers before I can discuss or have an opinion?

I do believe that any idea that requires us to "change our core economic system" is not reasonable.

And if governments are really propping up fossil fuel usage and keeping prices unnaturally low using subsidies a simple and obvious suggestion would seem to be "stop doing that".
 
scooter84 said:
So I have to have all the specific answers before I can discuss or have an opinion?

I do believe that any idea that requires us to "change our core economic system" is not reasonable.

And if governments are really propping up fossil fuel usage and keeping prices unnaturally low using subsidies a simple and obvious suggestion would seem to be "stop doing that".
Click to expand...
You're questioning if fossil fuel subsidies exist?

It's also simple and obvious that dramatically increasing gas prices would be a political loser which is why they won't do it.
 
PhDeac said:
scooter, your questions seem to be asking how to do capitalism within socialism. Part of the point is that the money motivation leads to climate change so moving away from the money motivation is required to reverse climate change.

With respect to market driven solutions, if you want the answers of "how" from others, you should be prepared to provide them yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have to move away from money motivation to solve the problem - not at all - that was my point. Money motivation is not going to go away so we should use it to solve the problems. We have already done that in limited ways with tax incentives for EVs, for solar panels, etc.
 
scooter84 said:
So I have to have all the specific answers before I can discuss or have an opinion?

I do believe that any idea that requires us to "change our core economic system" is not reasonable.

And if governments are really propping up fossil fuel usage and keeping prices unnaturally low using subsidies a simple and obvious suggestion would seem to be "stop doing that".
Click to expand...
You did give us a magic wand.

The US has changed a lot about its core economic system over time based around structural and external factors facing the nation. Before independence we were very different from antebellum which was very different from Reconstruction which was very different from New Deal which was very different to Reagonomics. Basically from neofeudal to neoliberal in a couple hundred years, and the rate of progress and technology change is only increasing.

I’d argue that, reasonable or not, changing the core economic system is going to be vital to the future existence of our nation.
 
scooter84 said:
So I have to have all the specific answers before I can discuss or have an opinion?

I do believe that any idea that requires us to "change our core economic system" is not reasonable.
Click to expand...
It's just a frustrating way to converse. 'No body else's ideas are reasonable and I don't have any ideas' leads to a dead end.
 
birdman said:
It's just a frustrating way to converse. 'No body else's ideas are reasonable and I don't have any ideas' leads to a dead end.
Click to expand...
I did kind of make suggestions - I just don't have all the details, sorry. I have suggested that making actions that help combat climate change financially attractive is the best way to motivate both people and companies. I pointed out that tax incentives have proven that this type of strategy works. I don't generally favor government intervention but admitted that taxation policy, both by way of incentives for positive behaviors and increased taxation for negative behaviors is one lever that can be pulled.

I would say that technological advances will also address the problem - by making renewable energy sources more efficient and cheaper they will naturally become more attractive from a financial/profit point of view. And there are a myriad of other areas where advances in technology will help the issue - I am actually pretty confident in our ability (as a world/human race) to solve problems. The issue here is getting the critical mass of people needed to focus on this problem. I think we have certainly moved in that direction over the last decade - maybe not fast enough but momentum SEEMS to be building. The more resources (money) that can be thrown at that type of research, both from private sources and from governments around the world, the better. If there is money to be had, the research will get done.
 
PhDeac said:
You're questioning if fossil fuel subsidies exist?

It's also simple and obvious that dramatically increasing gas prices would be a political loser which is why they won't do it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really questioning it but I don't know anything about that practice and don't think I had ever read about it. I know about gasoline taxes in the US so it seems strange that fossil fuels would be subsidized to make them cheaper and then pretty heavily taxed to make them more expensive. But then the government does strange things on a regular basis, so...
 
scooter84 said:
I did kind of make suggestions - I just don't have all the details, sorry. I have suggested that making actions that help combat climate change financially attractive is the best way to motivate both people and companies. I pointed out that tax incentives have proven that this type of strategy works. I don't generally favor government intervention but admitted that taxation policy, both by way of incentives for positive behaviors and increased taxation for negative behaviors is one lever that can be pulled.

I would say that technological advances will also address the problem - by making renewable energy sources more efficient and cheaper they will naturally become more attractive from a financial/profit point of view. And there are a myriad of other areas where advances in technology will help the issue - I am actually pretty confident in our ability (as a world/human race) to solve problems. The issue here is getting the critical mass of people needed to focus on this problem. I think we have certainly moved in that direction over the last decade - maybe not fast enough but momentum SEEMS to be building. The more resources (money) that can be thrown at that type of research, both from private sources and from governments around the world, the better. If there is money to be had, the research will get done.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is a good response. Thanks.
 
scooter84 said:
I wasn't really questioning it but I don't know anything about that practice and don't think I had ever read about it. I know about gasoline taxes in the US so it seems strange that fossil fuels would be subsidized to make them cheaper and then pretty heavily taxed to make them more expensive. But then the government does strange things on a regular basis, so...
Click to expand...
The US subsidizes approximately $20 billion per year in fossil fuels (to the industry)

I don't think it's strange at all that the policy is to both ensure fossil fuel availability and that companies continue to providing it, while also taxing consumers on what is essentially required in large parts of the country.
 
scooter84 said:
I wasn't really questioning it but I don't know anything about that practice and don't think I had ever read about it. I know about gasoline taxes in the US so it seems strange that fossil fuels would be subsidized to make them cheaper and then pretty heavily taxed to make them more expensive. But then the government does strange things on a regular basis, so...
Click to expand...
Subsidizing production and taxing consumption is quite common.
 
People talk as if we are still in a massive population growth phase. We are already close to negative growth, and barring a change in fertility trends, population will be shrinking soon. Africa is the only continent that is currently above replacement rates.
 
Thinking that tax credits or carbon offsets will solve climate change is more unrealistic than the possibility of a new economic system. This is the problem i have with the “only realistic solutions” people.
 
PhDeac said:
Subsidizing production and taxing consumption is quite common.
Click to expand...
I guess you are right but it still seems a little ridiculous, right? Essentially you are taking money away from the consumers and giving it to the producers. If the purpose of subsidizing production is to make the product available more cheaply then why not just drop the taxes and stop subsidizing? That would theoretically accomplish the same thing? I am sure the magnitude is different on the two ends and I am sure there are other reasons why it is not the same thing... But, it sounds like we are just running money in a circle through the government where the government overhead is going to suck up a bunch of it...
 
scooter84 said:
I guess you are right but it still seems a little ridiculous, right? Essentially you are taking money away from the consumers and giving it to the producers. If the purpose of subsidizing production is to make the product available more cheaply then why not just drop the taxes and stop subsidizing? That would theoretically accomplish the same thing? I am sure the magnitude is different on the two ends and I am sure there are other reasons why it is not the same thing... But, it sounds like we are just running money in a circle through the government where the government overhead is going to suck up a bunch of it...
Click to expand...
welcome to a plutocracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top