7 ms·

Now that the US government has failed to act on climate change, it might be a good idea for US companies and individuals to take up the challenge.

by tphan 9y ago

tannerwj 9y ago
Exactly. We don't need the government's intervention to innovate and solve the climate problem
- cryptoz 9y ago
  Yes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in life, ecosystems, and global stability. Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change. Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.
  - tannerwj 9y ago
    Agree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades. Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.
    - coldpie 9y ago
      > Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific, not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes. Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have now, not hopeful guesses about the future. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
      - tannerwj 9y ago
        Sheesh, I'm getting downvoted to oblivion here just for having a differing opinion. Believe me, I've studied the science. I want to study it even more. I've just gained a different opinion based on that study than the majority on this chain obviously. I guess my opinion is not welcome.
        coldpie 9y ago
        Your opinion is not only at odds with the majority on this site, but also with almost every climate scientist on the planet. We tend to respect the scientific method on HN. If you're going to claim that every climate scientist is wrong, you'll at least need to speak from a position of authority or preferably show some evidence to back up your opinion.
        tannerwj 9y ago
        I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I respect the scientific method more than most. At least read what I've written before you say such things. Climate change is an issue, but the Paris Accord is a horrible excuse at throwing money at a problem. And if you read what I said earlier it could have serious repercussions for people who cannot afford the price increases for energy. We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.
- halfeatenpie 9y ago
  Climate scientist here. I'd love to see more companies and private businesses help solve the climate problems. However (and this is all just my experience and opinion so YMMV), on an economic level private corporations and businesses are focused on maximizing profit and minimizing costs, whereas public and government projects focus on maximizing benefit and minimizing costs. Not saying corporations are unethical but there could be times when solutions and research interests could conflict with profits or income generation. A public research institute is supposed to provide a "disconnect" between the need for income generation and research so that your results are really focusing on maximizing public benefit.
- mackal 9y ago
  Yeah, they've just known since the 70s, sure they will get right on that.
  - teslabox 9y ago
    > Yeah, they've just known since the 70s, sure they will get right on that. Someone I respect pointed out that greenhouse gas alarmism started on March 29th, 1979.
- dontyouremember 9y ago
  They take our tax dollars. I would have liked some of that to go to the Paris accord.
matt4077 9y ago
US companies and individuals were already taking up the challenge, mostly by arguing for this agreement. The agreement's purpose is to set common standards, so as to defuse the race-to-the-bottom/prisoner's dilemma mechanisms of markets. Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons that would out them at a disadvantage in the market. It's a common mistake to assume that industries object to all regulation: think of the small construction business where the owner still works himself, or cares for his people: he'll be among those profiting most from increased safety requirements.
- fivestar 9y ago
  I don't see the point of the whole thing other than it was a gigantic wealth transfer scheme. If global warming is real (and I refuse to use the ridiculous "climate change" label--honestly, wtf is climate change other than bs marketing), then the only thing that will save the human race is technology. Carbon credits or world communism are not going to get the job done.
- candiodari 9y ago
  Arguing is all that's been done. Arguing, and demonstrations, and actions, and earth hour, and presumably some puppies were left home with the air conditioning set down one notch. Oh no ! US withdraws from the climate accords. What impact will it have ? Well here's what happened when the US and the world agreed to "binding" climate accords: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/g... Can you see it ? Me neither ... There are no words ... Binding climate accords were signed in 1992, 2005 (sort of) and 2012. Look at those points on the graph ... Let's face facts here: climate accords make NO difference, no matter how binding. Can everybody who makes claims that worldwide accords, climate action, earth hour, ... everything that's been done in the last 40 years makes one iota of difference please explain why anybody would put in any amount of effort here ?
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Sure: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bda7c707570c0b1efd2cf1dbbda73f8a.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bda7c7075... The problem with CO_2 concentration is that it's a lagging indicator, and that any attempts to lower emissions has to fight against the increased use of energy as economies in Asia and Africa are catching up. Politics is slow, and there are few mechanisms in international law to enforce treaties. But an international agreement can work, for example by giving politicians arguments ("We're required to do it, because we promised it", "We're not going to lose competitiveness, because everyone is doing it"). Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude and are now getting close to being competitive with fossil fuels, at least in some regions. Crossing that threshold would obviously be an inflection point.

Now that the US government has failed to act on climate change, it might be a good idea for US companies and individuals to take up the challenge.

by tphan 9y ago

Now that the US government has failed to act on climate change, it might be a good idea for US companies and individuals to take up the challenge.

tannerwj 9y ago

Exactly. We don't need the government's intervention to innovate and solve the climate problem

cryptoz 9y ago
Yes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in life, ecosystems, and global stability. Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change. Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.
- tannerwj 9y ago
  Agree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades. Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.
  - coldpie 9y ago
    > Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific, not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes. Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have now, not hopeful guesses about the future. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
    - tannerwj 9y ago
      Sheesh, I'm getting downvoted to oblivion here just for having a differing opinion. Believe me, I've studied the science. I want to study it even more. I've just gained a different opinion based on that study than the majority on this chain obviously. I guess my opinion is not welcome.
      - coldpie 9y ago
        Your opinion is not only at odds with the majority on this site, but also with almost every climate scientist on the planet. We tend to respect the scientific method on HN. If you're going to claim that every climate scientist is wrong, you'll at least need to speak from a position of authority or preferably show some evidence to back up your opinion.
        tannerwj 9y ago
        I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I respect the scientific method more than most. At least read what I've written before you say such things. Climate change is an issue, but the Paris Accord is a horrible excuse at throwing money at a problem. And if you read what I said earlier it could have serious repercussions for people who cannot afford the price increases for energy. We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.
halfeatenpie 9y ago
Climate scientist here. I'd love to see more companies and private businesses help solve the climate problems. However (and this is all just my experience and opinion so YMMV), on an economic level private corporations and businesses are focused on maximizing profit and minimizing costs, whereas public and government projects focus on maximizing benefit and minimizing costs. Not saying corporations are unethical but there could be times when solutions and research interests could conflict with profits or income generation. A public research institute is supposed to provide a "disconnect" between the need for income generation and research so that your results are really focusing on maximizing public benefit.
mackal 9y ago
Yeah, they've just known since the 70s, sure they will get right on that.
- teslabox 9y ago
  > Yeah, they've just known since the 70s, sure they will get right on that. Someone I respect pointed out that greenhouse gas alarmism started on March 29th, 1979.
dontyouremember 9y ago
They take our tax dollars. I would have liked some of that to go to the Paris accord.

matt4077 9y ago

US companies and individuals were already taking up the challenge, mostly by arguing for this agreement. The agreement's purpose is to set common standards, so as to defuse the race-to-the-bottom/prisoner's dilemma mechanisms of markets. Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons that would out them at a disadvantage in the market. It's a common mistake to assume that industries object to all regulation: think of the small construction business where the owner still works himself, or cares for his people: he'll be among those profiting most from increased safety requirements.

fivestar 9y ago
I don't see the point of the whole thing other than it was a gigantic wealth transfer scheme. If global warming is real (and I refuse to use the ridiculous "climate change" label--honestly, wtf is climate change other than bs marketing), then the only thing that will save the human race is technology. Carbon credits or world communism are not going to get the job done.
candiodari 9y ago
Arguing is all that's been done. Arguing, and demonstrations, and actions, and earth hour, and presumably some puppies were left home with the air conditioning set down one notch. Oh no ! US withdraws from the climate accords. What impact will it have ? Well here's what happened when the US and the world agreed to "binding" climate accords: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/g... Can you see it ? Me neither ... There are no words ... Binding climate accords were signed in 1992, 2005 (sort of) and 2012. Look at those points on the graph ... Let's face facts here: climate accords make NO difference, no matter how binding. Can everybody who makes claims that worldwide accords, climate action, earth hour, ... everything that's been done in the last 40 years makes one iota of difference please explain why anybody would put in any amount of effort here ?
- matt4077 9y ago
  Sure: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bda7c707570c0b1efd2cf1dbbda73f8a.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bda7c7075... The problem with CO_2 concentration is that it's a lagging indicator, and that any attempts to lower emissions has to fight against the increased use of energy as economies in Asia and Africa are catching up. Politics is slow, and there are few mechanisms in international law to enforce treaties. But an international agreement can work, for example by giving politicians arguments ("We're required to do it, because we promised it", "We're not going to lose competitiveness, because everyone is doing it"). Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude and are now getting close to being competitive with fossil fuels, at least in some regions. Crossing that threshold would obviously be an inflection point.