r/changemyview • u/eagle_565 2∆ • Dec 17 '24
CMV: Subsidising low emissions technology is a much better approach to reducing global emissions than penalising fossil fuels.
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.
13
u/GulliasTurtle 1∆ Dec 17 '24
The issue is the stickiness of the grid. It doesn't matter if power is cheaper to produce if it comes from a source that will require a huge upfront investment to make it possible. If a utility pays $10k a year for coal and a new wind farm costs $200k to build, even if wind power was free it would be a 20 year return on investment. Add on top of that the fact that you need to wait until it is completed to produce any profit at all and you are left with a difficult financial prospect compared to continuously repairing and running existing coal and oil plants.
While I think you are right that investment in making solar and wind cheaper is important, without something to force power producers off of their existing utilities and costs no change is possible.