Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ajmurmann 1757 days ago
> "using technologies we have today[..]"

I feel this limitation is where we lose most of the public. For example I am convinced that if we bid the bullet and banned burning fossil fuels starting next January, things would suck in the short term. However, I am also convinced that the progress we'd make in alternative technologies in the next 1-2 years would be unfathomable. I think we underestimate the miracles mankind can do given strong incentives like this. Yet we are afraid to create these incentives because of our low faith in our own ability.
2 comments
kilburn 1757 days ago
I agree with you on the premise but not on the motives.

People who hold the money/power don't want to lose it. Quick (big) changes are a huge risk to their positions. Hence, we get slow gradual changes instead. It really is that simple to me.

link
ajmurmann 1757 days ago
100%! Both are true
link
garyrichardson 1757 days ago
I 100% agree with this view. Its not practical to go cold turkey as people would freeze and starve.

It’s one of the reasons I’m anti-pipeline. I’m generally against anything that makes it easier to get and distribute fossil fuels. Adding friction is an alternative way to internalize the cost of fossil fuels.

link
ajmurmann 1757 days ago
"I 100% agree with this view. Its not practical to go cold turkey as people would freeze and starve."

Not sure if I was clear that my view is the opposite of what you are saying. I believe much fewer people would "freezer and starve" than expected because we suddenly would get very, very industries about finding alternative solutions. We would get through a short period that's super super tough but quickly would end up end par or better than our current circumstances. What's more, I believe that it's much easier to go through tough times collectively than individually. This is often true in war and natural disasters and night be true if we go cold turkey, as long as we do it together.

link
AnimalMuppet 1757 days ago
What happens instead is just that people use trucks to move the oil, instead of the more efficient pipelines. That makes it somewhat more expensive, which makes the oil somewhat less useful economically, and therefore somewhat less used. On the other hand, the trucks pollute more than the pipeline would have.

Are you sure your approach is helping?

link