Of course, the consequences of climate change are billions cast into abject poverty, wars over resources and land, and so on. Moreover, if we do away with carbon subsidies (i.e., implement carbon pricing and border adjustments), then yes the cost of fossil fuel energy goes up, the consequence is the society adapts to using power more efficiently. We make less disposable shit, our industrial processes improve to keep costs down, etc. Further still, nuclear fission is still a perfectly good option, and we have reactor designs that are dramatically smaller, safer, and cheaper than previous generations (with projections for the levelized cost of energy comparing favorably with that of fossil fuels today).
> Of course, the consequences of climate change are billions cast into abject poverty
That may be true, but I was referring to the effects of switching to renewables too early. Since given our technology, the cost per MW is higher from renewables, switching to renewables (as a society) has massive costs. If we rise the price of the MW a 10%, that's a +10% on every MW from now until we find something better. That could be a long time, which means the impact of these costs could be gigantic. As I've commented elsewhere in this article, a 0.75% reduction on GDP over 100 years is equivalent to losing more than the entire (current) annual GDP, that's not nothing! Growth is how we've managed to move millions out of poverty, we should think it through before sacrificing growth.
I hope we could agree though, that the cost of switching to renewables too early is negligible compared to the cost of switching too late. If that can be agreed on by all, the relevant questions are
1) when do we think it would be too late?
2) how certain are we of that date?
3) how long will it take to switch to renewables? and
4) How certain are we of that date?
I don't disagree with your basic premise. Personally I think the answer to 1) is 140 years, so no reason to panic or dawdle. But it's important to remember that the more the economy grows before the switch to renewables is complete, the harder it becomes to make the switch. And, a better invention in renewables without the energy to scale it up won't do us much good, a significant part of our nonrenewables needs to be invested in renewables or the next 140 years of invention won't be much use.
> that the cost of switching to renewables too early is negligible compared to the cost of switching too late.
Smaller yes, but I wouldn't call it negligible.
> the more the economy grows before the switch to renewables is complete, the harder it becomes to make the switch.
That one I think you got reversed. Think that one through, the economy now is way greater than it was in 1980, do you really think we were better prepared for the switch back then?
>That one I think you got reversed. Think that one through, the economy now is way greater than it was in 1980, do you really think we were better prepared for the switch back then?
I wasn't clear. We become better prepared to switch but the switch itself becomes harder. The 1980 economy was smaller, therefore it would have required fewer renewable energy sources to replicate using only renewable energy. Sure, renewable energy is more available today than in 1980, but that's due in large part to people since 1980 being willing to invest in something other than fossil fuels, despite the lower margins.
> We become better prepared to switch but the switch itself becomes harder.
But that’s the trick, for instance, now that solar is under the cost of gas, improvements in solar have slowed down, but now everyone is trying to make batteries.
It’s very unlikely that the pattern won’t repeat itself, in 2050 (or 2070), we will probably be in a better position to do the switch, even if total energy consumption has grown.
I too am cautiously optimistic, but I'm worried about complacency. Innovation doesn't just happen, it takes a lot of hard work. If we don't keep in mind the cost of not innovating, I'm concerned we won't adequately reward that work.
"Of course, the consequences of climate change are billions cast into abject poverty"
The only way to end climate change is to have a serious debate about population control. But no one wants difficult debates (at least people that matter). Nuclear fission once pulled off will make things much much worse. I foresee a population explosion into areas once uninhabitable.
> Nuclear fission once pulled off will make things much much worse.
Doubling the population will make things worse in 40 years. How is this hard? Double chickens? Double cows? Double coal plants? wtf? lol. You are the fool. Trying googling "when does population double".
> Doubling the population will make things worse in 40 years. How is this hard? Double chickens? Double cows? Double coal plants? wtf? lol. You are the fool. Trying googling "when does population double".
Ooooff.
1. The population isn't projected to double even in the next century much less the next 40 years. In the next eighty years, the population is expected to increase by only 40%. If you took your own advice ("Google") then you'd know this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
2. You're incorrectly assuming that the greenhouse gas emissions scales linearly with the population size *even as the emissions per MWh approaches zero. The demand for energy does indeed scale with population (probably sublinearly, but not going to pick that nit right now), but the goal is to drive down the emissions per unit energy to nearly zero much faster than population grows.
"You're incorrectly assuming that the greenhouse gas emissions scales linearly with the population size *even as the emissions per MWh approaches zero."
No it will not be linear. If you have a population that is exponential.
Pretty sure you could just price in carbon. Poverty is more like not driving an f150 2 hours to your job at office, not max eating 6 steaks a week, taking shorter showers, and turning your AC in south Texas in August from 62 to 78
Your point is excellent, but ironically (of all vehicles to pick on) Ford is coming out with an all-electric F150 next year. Which kind of makes an even more profound point: we don't need to give up our luxuries, but we do need our luxuries to become more efficient. If you switch to an electric water heater, you can enjoy your long, hot showers without worrying about carbon pricing driving up your bill.
> The only way to end climate change is to have a serious debate about population control.
It’s always disturbing how quickly this stuff goes from here to “we have to prevent other people from having kids rather than having Americans stop consuming”. Get your neighbor out of their F150 before trying to sterilize the global south.
> Nuclear fission once pulled off will make things much much worse.
Fusion. Fission has been done for your entire lifetime.
> I foresee a population explosion into areas once uninhabitable.
Apparently your foresight doesn’t involve actually bothering to check the fertility rate in any nation. If you’d done that, you’d realize that birth rates drop as nations get richer. Most of the world is below replacement rate, and world populations are expected to peak in the year 2100 and begin falling.
The thing that actually limits reproduction isn’t resources, but child mortality and interest. Once you can expect your children to survive infancy, most people want fewer of them.
"F150 before trying to sterilize the global south"
Right. So people not buying a f150 will help combat the climate destruction of a doubling population in the next 40 years. Is this a joke? I don't understand how a smart group can say such stupid things.
The parent was clearly exaggerating. The point was pretty obviously that Americans should curb their appetite for carbon before proposing extreme population control policies for others. Which is an eminently reasonable point, and sad that it has to be articulated explicitly.
More seriously, "getting your neighbor out of their F150" or any other "personal responsibility" approach is doomed to fail because citizens don't have appropriate information to make informed environmental choices (we can't accurately estimate how much carbon goes into the manufacture of the products and services they consume) which is why carbon pricing is necessary.
a really serious conversation about population control is an armed conflict and only a fool will think otherwise. I think you can choose to not have children, but if you want to force others to not have children, prepare to be at war because that's what it will come to.
An actual debate on population control would be looking at reducing the number of children in the developed world even more, and discouraging suburban housing.
