[ridicter]

It _is_ a political issue. The technology already exists--courtesy of the scientists/engineers of course. Whether that technology is deployed is a problem of politics.

For example, if the price of fossil fuels reflected its true cost to society--think climate change, extreme weather, stronger storms, droughts, ocean acidification, etc--then fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive compared to renewable or nuclear energy. This is what a carbon tax is, and it's what many scientists and economists have been pushing for decades now. But they've been fighting a losing battle against the oil and gas lobby, and one party in particular that is wholly captured by them.

In fact, James Hansen, NASA scientist and head of the Goddard Institute, got out of the science to focus specifically on the politics. He urges people to join the Citizens Climate Lobby, which has lobbied for carbon pricing legislation for over a decade now: the Energy Innovation Act has bipartisan support in Congress right now (https://energyinnovationact.org/). Many other scientists are involved in the politics these day as well (Katherine Hayhoe [atmospheric scientist], Michael Mann [climatologist]).

[pathseeker]

>This is what a carbon tax is, and it's what many scientists and economists have been pushing for decades now. But they've been fighting a losing battle against the oil and gas lobby, and one party in particular that is wholly captured by them.

You missed the forest for the trees. As the OP pointed out, the US going to zero emissions overnight will not even help. US politics will not solve Nigeria's, China's, or India's populations from expanding to modern western consumerism.

[the_gastropod]

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Of course we can't instantly solve global carbon emissions. But we can do our (very large) part here in the U.S. By shifting where our dollars go. By moving from carbon to renewable sources, we'll drop the price of renewables, helping small economies afford to do the same.

Progress is virtually always incremental. We need to begin by stopping dragging our feet.

[rayiner]

That’s like saying we should try to bail out the boat with spoons because “progress is incremental.” It’s not only pointless, but actively dangerous, because it’s a distraction.

The “Green New Deal” is a great example. A jobs program obviously won’t do anything to seriously address climate change. Worse, it wastes money and political capital on things that could have more utility. If you spent that money on nuclear energy research and gave it away to developing nations, then you could really move the needle.

[TeMPOraL]

But is it a distraction? To overuse the analogy, GP is proposing to yes, get most of the crew to spoon, to buy some little extra time while the engineering team is trying to fix the pumps. The alternative is to have the crew drink or pray to deities for the pumps to be blessed and magically start working.

If the development of the developing world is a problem, you can't expect the solution to come from developing world. On our end, like in the example of the ship's crew, most people aren't able to contribute to a proper solution - they lack the necessary skills and opportunities. Unfortunately (in this case), we live in free market democracies, which means there isn't a body that can reallocate huge amount of resources to retraining and retooling towards mitigating climate change. The market doesn't care, so we have to do things the hard way - we have to force our governments to force the market to start allocating resources, so that engineers and scientists and logisticians can deal with the problem directly.

[the_gastropod]

Spoons? The U.S. is responsible for a whopping 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. China is the only country on the planet that emits more than us, and they have ~4x the population.

[tekstar]

This is a problem that has no single, simple solution. If every possible solution is shot down because it doesn't solve ALL the problems at once then we will never succeed.

We need to divide and conquer. The west needs to hold themselves accountable, and then hold stragglers accountable.

[TeMPOraL]

> We need to divide and conquer. The west needs to hold themselves accountable, and then hold stragglers accountable.

And then donate some of the tech and resources, too. By virtue of being first, we've cut out the developing nations from the most direct path to improving their living conditions. We do, IMO, have a responsibility to help them leapfrog the "fossil fuel" part of that path.

(Though honestly, we can revisit that point later. First, let's get to zero emissions ourselves.)

[js2]

Of course it will help. It's progress. Besides that, why won't the solutions which enable the US to go to zero emissions work as well for other countries? Because those countries can't afford those solutions? Well then the rest of us are going to have to figure that out too.

[ridicter]

There's a path dependence to everything. Had we started earlier, we would have shaped the curve of possibilities: renewables would be cheaper, storage solutions would have come online earlier, etc. We would have shaped international dialogue and culture around this issue too, with other nations following the US's lead as far as policies and technologies adopted.

Real world example of path dependence: Supreme Court stops recount in FL --> GWB elected --> Pulling out of Kyoto protocols, starting wars --> [...] Trump elected, partially due to government mistrust seeded in GWB era--> even worse climate change policies

[rayiner]

But the problem is that the policies are wrong. They start from the premise that what matters is behavioral change, not technological change. We need $100 billion/year of federal money into thorium and battery research, not "green jobs" or Kyoto protocol. We don't need a "New Deal" to avert climate change, we need a Manhattan Project. But I absolutely agree that we needed those things starting 30 years ago.

[snikeris]

You didn't address the problem of Nigeria that the OP brought up. How will a carbon tax in the U.S. address the issue of the Nigerian people rightly desiring a better standard of living?

[adrianN]

If Nigeria wants to trade with US they'd have to pay carbon tariffs that encourage them to decarbonize their economy.

[jeremyjh]

What if OPEC collects the tax worldwide?

[nosleeptill]

People don't support the concept of taxes even when they can directly see the positive impact the tax payment has on their own lives and on the community.

Addressing climate change is an abstract concept and for most people, like 80% of the population they can't grasp the abstract, so it all feels like a scam, one big flea circus. "No, no, the fleas are there you just can't see them, just trust me."

Unless someone can invent a way to capture and sequester greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere to the tune of 50.9 gigatonnes per year I really don't see humanity making any progress, slowing growth isn't helping.

[RickJWagner]

To see who's really serious about change, see who publicly admits nuclear power is a necessity.

On the bright side, one US party doesn't own that issue. There are proponents and detractors on both sides.