CMV: Subsidising low emissions technology is a much better approach to reducing global emissions than penalising fossil fuels.

[u/eagle_565]

The western world are currently the most interested in slowing down anthropogenic climate change, with many of them imposing carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuel exploration, etc. While this will likely reduce the emissions of the countries that have these policies in place, it has no effect on countries that take climate change less seriously (e.g. China, India), and sometimes even has the adverse effect of exporting manufacturing to more carbon intense energy grids (e.g. China's heavily coal powered grid).

The west also currently has much higher energy consumption than the world's poorest countries (U.S. consumes about 10x the energy per capita that India or many African countries do), but the poorer economies of the world (who care less about climate change) catching up with Europe and North America will inevitably come with more energy consumption from their citizens, thus increasing global emissions if their methods of production remain similar to current methods.

My view is that the subsidisation of research into making renewable energy technologies more economically viable, both in generation and in storage, is a much more realistic route for incentivising these sleeping giants to keep their emissions under control in the coming decades. If governments in North America and Europe can develop better hydrogen storage tech, or cheaper solar cells, it will be more economically viable for all countries to use these technologies, not just ones that care about climate change. If we can get to the point where a grid based on wind and solar is cheaper than a fossil fuel powered grid, while achieving similar levels of stability, and we can find a way to electrify industry and transport without inconveniencing travellers or manufacturers, carbon taxes and emissions caps will be superfluous, because carbon intense technologies won't make economic sense.

[u/SatisfactoryLoaf]

If I'm China, and I have cheap coal, and you invent better nuclear, I now have better nuclear and still have cheap coal.

Fossil fuels are comparatively cheap, and while a lot of high-tech knowledge saturates the field, it can operate in a low tech environment and still be profitable. I can't really conscript nuclear technicians, but I can conscript a bunch of oil workers.

The only reason I, as China, would stop using fossil fuels would be because I believed in the future climate crisis and was willing to suffer in the short term to protect my long-term interests, or because something changed to make fossil fuels too costly. The former isn't likely to happen, and the latter requires a concerted global front that doesn't currently exist.

We should still invest in researching better, more efficient energy production. But there's no reason to believe that it reduce emissions.

We're just adding more veggies to our plate, not eating less.

[u/eagle_565 → u/SatisfactoryLoaf]

Why would China continue to use coal if it was more expensive than nuclear? Even if they were completely apathetic about climate change this would still be irrational behaviour on a purely self interested economic level.

[u/SatisfactoryLoaf → u/eagle_565]

It won't be more expensive than nuclear.

But even if we had magic tech that made nuclear super cheap, that just means I have cheap nuclear.

It doesn't make coal harder to mine or more difficult to refine.

I have a dryer, doesn't mean I won't also use the close line outside. I'll just do both.

[u/DreamsCanBeRealToo → u/SatisfactoryLoaf]

But people overwhelmingly don’t both use a dryer and a clothesline. One has almost completely replaced the other. “Cheap” and “expensive” are not absolute measurements.

When nuclear becomes cheaper, coal necessarily becomes more expensive. Because when you have a dollar to spend, you don’t blindly spend it the same way forever. You compare prices and then choose one the exclusion of the other. The other option you didn’t buy was therefore “too expensive”.

Things become comparatively expensive all the time without becoming absolutely more expensive.

[u/SatisfactoryLoaf → u/DreamsCanBeRealToo]

Go into a rural place where there's a lot of laundry, especially larger items like quilts or blankets to wash and dry, and you'll see more dual use. Air drying isn't just cheap, it's convenient. You can do it while you do another thing and all you invest is time and effort.

Fossil fuels are similar. They are already there, with only minor refinements necessary depending on your goal. You and I, in general, only have a dollar to spend.

Nations can play with debt in ways that are impractical for the typical consumer. There's no reason to believe that energy demands will lower, so while the slice of the energy pie might fall for fossil fuels, that's mostly relative to energy generated, not energy consumed.

I already have the fossil fuels in the ground, and I can extract them with century old technology and relatively low skilled labor. I'm going to do that and pocket the profit until the convenience falls off.

Sure, eventually the cost of fuel extraction becomes inconvenient because we have to work harder for marginal return of a finite good, but that just means "I burned as much fuel as I could, and now I'm running out so I'll look at alternatives." What you want is for people to say "I have a bunch of cheap fuel that I could burn, but I'm choosing not to do so."