• ImplyingImplications
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps too important to leave to politicians versus scientists

    The scientists who constantly publish papers saying we’re all going to die if we don’t do something drastic immediately? You think they’re going to have a problem with this?

    • streetfestival
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I obviously don’t think climate scientists will have a problem with the intent behind this, nor do I.

      My only concern is investing (money, time, attention) in initiatives that don’t have a good chance to succeed. Implementation scientists and policy experts would also be involved under what I was proposing. Others in this post seem to think this plan is more likely to succeed than me - and I’m not an expert, so maybe I’m wrong - and I hope I am

      • Pxtl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that the correct way to do this that lets the economy itself find the most efficient and effective way to eliminate emissions? That’s carbon pricing. No need for the government to pick winners and losers, just make everybody pay for the emissions and then businesses and individuals will invest in green solutions because nobody likes wasting money.

        And despite that being the economics-oriented market-based, scientific, conservative solution, the “Conservatives” freaking hate it.

        And they can destroy it with the stroke of a pen.

        So the Liberals need to find solutions that are sticky. Things that can’t be destroyed with a pen. Things like charging infrastructure, and insulation, and green power. Things made of concrete and wires.