5 ms·
In the United States, meaningful climate action is primarily a political problem to be solved -- not technology, policy, technology research, or policy research
by ridicter 7y ago
In the United States, meaningful climate action is primarily a political problem to be solved -- not technology, policy, technology research, or policy research.
If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved:
1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican, 30+ Dems) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (http://energyinnovationact.org/ http://energyinnovationact.org/). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.
2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that they are pushing forward.
In addition, if you live in the states of Oregon and New York, both are on the cusp of passing similar legislation. And there are many more out there in various stages of development...
*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change, according to economists. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt.
- fuckyah 7y agoBut who knows if there’s climate change?
- briandear 7y agoIsn’t this comment a verbatim cut and paste from a few days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19981905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19981905 Using HN as a campaign platform seems to violate the guidelines.
- chias 7y agoI can only speak for me, but I found the comment informative and helpful, even if it had already been made elsewhere.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoYeah. I also miss that one HNer who repeatedly pasted "so you want to help fight climate change?" comments with news on the cleantech space under each climate thread some time ago. EDIT: found it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154
- drilldrive 7y agoThat may be so, but one should use a disclaimer if he is pasting the same comment into multiple threads.
- dev_dull 7y ago> If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal Does anyone here who has looked even a little bit into this “bill” think it will solve even a fraction of our problems without creating 100x more? This is an honest question. I feel like I’m on crazy pills when I talk to people about this. 10 trillion dollars? 1/3rd of all the money in the entire world? I mean, it doesn’t even consider nuclear energy...
- arcticbull 7y agoAgreed nuclear needs to be considered.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sp332 7y agoWell the Green New Deal doesn't have any actual policies, so it's impossible to put a real number on it. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne... [Edit: I don't mean to be snarky here, the resolution posted by AOC https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go... is just a position paper.] And it's important to compare the cost of radical action on climate change against the cost of not taking radical action on climate change. The options are not $10T vs. $0.
- shkkmo 7y agoI'm not a particular supporter of the green new deal as a whole, however most attacks on the cost of it seem rather simplistic at best and factually misleading at worst. A substantial portion of that cost estimate is the single payer healthcare, but this is money that is mostly already being spent by the US gov, individuals and companies. Regardless of the wisdom of a single payer system, this is mostly just shifting the cost, not creating a new one. The other major part of this is guaranteed jobs, is a pretty broad estimate that spans a whole order of magnitude. In order to get that 10 trillion a year estimate you have to ignore the first issue, take the top estimate for the second and then round up. Also, the global GDP is about 75 trillion so that 1/3rd number is pretty far from true regardless of the other issues. Which is not to say it isn't an expensive plan, but throwing around misleading numbers is unhelpful.
- techrich 7y agoThe green new deal LOL. To do that it would bankrupt the country!
- arcticbull 7y agoProbably not more than it literally sinking though so that’s something to think about.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoShow your work.