What about cutting subsidies? Make the price of fuel more realistic to force reductions. The money saved can go to the same places, but we also slow emissions. It will definitely be terrible for most people, but real solutions have to be hard.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
113 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5151 readers
489 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What about cutting subsidies? Make the price of fuel more realistic to force reductions.
This would primarily impact low income families who can't afford electric vehicles and who are dependent on fossil fuel sources for cooking and heating. It's worth discussing these options, and at some point the issue will have to be forced, but the impact needs to be mitigated with forethought.
real solutions have to be hard.
This isn't necessarily true. Wind and solar power have become the most cost-effective power generating options, to the point where almost all new grid power generation is one or the other (see the Lazard report on Levelized Cost of Energy). Building anything else in the current market looks like a financial mistake. I'm pretty sure this is why the recent attempts to build new nuclear power never get beyond the initial planning - the falling cost of wind and solar keeps undercutting their projected $/MWh. This happened because of government subsidies driving the development of wind and solar until they became viable, and it didn't require a direct negative impact on anybody.
The real takeaway here is that government subsidies are very effective for turning prototype technologies into effective solutions.
How about we go renewable instead?
What if we use the tax money to invest in renewables?
Perpetuates the problem. Tax the companies and those who profit from them out of existence, money for that and probably most other good things.
The two actions are not mutually exclusive.
Taxing carbon at its source is the only feasible way of doing a carbon tax, we have to get serious about this if we even pretend to care about the safety and national security threats that come with global warming, rising sea levels, severe/changing weather, etc.
Hooooray, change the incentives! That's the only way to coax corporations into changing their behavior.