> At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already.
Fuel is about 3% of the farm expenses ( https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_... ), even tripling it will not make produce significantly more expensive for consumers. But individual farmers can't switch because it will make their individual farm uncompetitive. That's where the regulation should come in to force _everyone_ to switch, negating the competitive advantages.
> Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with
Shipping had largerly switched to low-sulfur fuel by 2020, resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted.
> All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects.
Not really. Most of the technologies required for low-CO2 economy exist right now, and just need to be deployed. It just needs political will to force its adoption.
> resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted
Yeah that has been a blunder of epic proportions, certainly helped a lot to bring last year up to 1.5 C.
Well I hope you're right, but frankly I think political will is too focused on pointless infighting and corruption to get anything done even if they wanted to. Most people aren't even demanding anything from their representatives, they just want cheap food, cheap gas and no taxes. The Paris Agreement has become a complete joke by now, nobody's even trying to abide by it anymore.
Fuel is about 3% of the farm expenses ( https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_... ), even tripling it will not make produce significantly more expensive for consumers. But individual farmers can't switch because it will make their individual farm uncompetitive. That's where the regulation should come in to force _everyone_ to switch, negating the competitive advantages.
> Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with
Shipping had largerly switched to low-sulfur fuel by 2020, resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted.
> All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects.
Not really. Most of the technologies required for low-CO2 economy exist right now, and just need to be deployed. It just needs political will to force its adoption.