That seems like a cynical though broadly accurate description of carbon pricing, which are in place around the world and shown to be one of the more effective interventions.
They are technically also paying the rich (and crucially the companies that supply things for both the rich and poor) to not use oil and gas too.
That's because India has to. Domestic demands are huge and India's coal isn't very high in quality. Not to mention coal power is largely state-controlled and doesn't allow for much private frolicking.
It's quite the opposite situation than the US, where coal is extremely high-quality and private player participation is unrestricted.
Almost all new energy construction is non-coal. Coal has collapsed even here in the US, and the current administration is unlikely to seriously change the trajectory. Gas is increasing, but mostly here in the US, but production is dropping again.
It's a transition, not a reduction. Human energy usage is going up.
It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated.
And those shifts, have tradeoffs.
Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure.
There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
Or we should start reading books about atmosphere physics. Taking a look at the infrared spectrum and checking out what's really going on there is worth it...
"In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," and further "Carbon dioxide, the gas purported to be the cause of catastrophic warming, is not toxic and does no harm." Both assertions are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change."
Short of the wealthy paying the poor to not use oil and gas, that's obviously not gonna happen. What's plan b?
That seems like a cynical though broadly accurate description of carbon pricing, which are in place around the world and shown to be one of the more effective interventions.
They are technically also paying the rich (and crucially the companies that supply things for both the rich and poor) to not use oil and gas too.
I mean directly. I have little faith in carbon pricing as anything but a grift.
if you don't price carbon, then emitting carbon is free (you just priced it at $0)
India seems to be converting to solar without external pressure.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boo...
That's because India has to. Domestic demands are huge and India's coal isn't very high in quality. Not to mention coal power is largely state-controlled and doesn't allow for much private frolicking.
It's quite the opposite situation than the US, where coal is extremely high-quality and private player participation is unrestricted.
Almost all new energy construction is non-coal. Coal has collapsed even here in the US, and the current administration is unlikely to seriously change the trajectory. Gas is increasing, but mostly here in the US, but production is dropping again.
> is setting the stage for a potential drop in annual coal-fired power output
I'm not holding my breath. I'm happy they saw a slight reduction in oil and gas use, though.
I suppose the alternative is making the alternatives cheaper. For example wind and solar for electricity are quite cheap.
Invest in whole house oxygen generators.
Yes, it can happen.
Any alternatives are way further into fantasy land than plan A.
What are the trade offs for that?
The entire point is that the global climate is a complex system and changing things may have unintended consequences.
> changing things may have unintended consequences.
Proved by reality, that's why they propose to reduce or even undo human emissions.
It's a transition, not a reduction. Human energy usage is going up.
It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated.
And those shifts, have tradeoffs.
Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure.
There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
Yep, currently attempting to move from a carbon economy to a metals based on.
Or we should start reading books about atmosphere physics. Taking a look at the infrared spectrum and checking out what's really going on there is worth it...
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-H...
"In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," and further "Carbon dioxide, the gas purported to be the cause of catastrophic warming, is not toxic and does no harm." Both assertions are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition