pedalmore

How can you possibly think the US military, or any sovereign country, will magically spend an extra $165B a year on meat a year if all of the current consumers magically go vegetarian? Who exactly is going to eat a bunch of extra meat? There will just be fewer meat sales, period, ignoring a short term price drop if everyone magically goes vegetarian on the same day.

How does empowering working class people solve the consumption issue though?

This is what happens when people condense ideas into simple phrases. The quote works great when describing things like marriage equality, but something like extra days off work for some people is different. The obvious solution is flexible holidays for everyone.

Capacity and generation are two different things. Grid operators have capacity markets that ensure peak load can be met, and incude generations assets, demand response, energy efficiency, etc. Batteries absolutely coumt as capacity so long as they are managed to do so.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn't spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your "ideal" policy, we'd have slightly higher support.

What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan's. You're both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and "trickle down". A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it's not deregulation, and it's the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol "Reaganomics" as well?

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/george-p-shultz/

There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you're attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That's because they promote good policy.

As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn't even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven't addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.

Your "solutions" are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That's not enough, and it's not fast enough. I'm not saying don't do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).

Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn't say that fossil lobby won, she'd probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you're at it. That's a much more mainstream attitude.

You can't just call any market based solution "Reaganomics", but ok. It's logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren't actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven't done it, I must conclude you're wrong. Why don't you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I'm not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.

I'm really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can't actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).

Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn't even make sense - you're saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we'd have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It's not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn't even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn't to say it's politically feasible, but you haven't offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone's behavior by pricing in externalities. It's very much viable and equitable, and if you think it's somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you're simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let's use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that's not where I'll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

They weren't talking about how long EVs have been around, but for anyone curious EVs generally predate ICE cars and were quite popular around 1900. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

Yep. Source: am in Colorado and have triple pane tilt turn windows, and know several others with them. They are super nice and slowly growing in popularity.

We’ve moved from 17% to 40% of total energy production coming from renewables since 2020

This what you said. You're comparing a 2020 number without nuclear to a 2022 number with nuclear. That's dumb and misleading. That doesn't make me a douche, it makes you wrong and petty. Grow up and just try to get your numbers and facts straight.

You said renewables are 40%, which is wrong. Then you sourced articles showing that carbon free sources are 40%, which includes nuclear. Nobody calls nuclear "renewable", so I suggest getting your language straight so as not to confuse.