|
|
|
|
|
by jjranalli
1691 days ago
|
|
I could be wrong, but I doubt the approach you described alone could reduce emissions at the scale required. What I'm trying to say is that (I think) the root of the problem are the economic incentives for fossil fuel companies. It's easier for them to compromise with governments (who can't strong-arm them) and pay fines (which in turn gets charged to their customers). I don't think this problem has ever been solved. But what if for some reason consumers, at a large scale, stopped paying for energy produced with fossil fuels? Wouldn't they be forced to adapt? Consumers may be emotional, but can also be swayed with the right incentives (governments typically play this part). I assume this to be extremely hard of course, but theoretically I feel like it would be the only way to align all parties in the same direction. |
|