Growing energy use and consumption means more environmental degradation = less abundance in nature.
Large scale energy infrastructure means ownership by shareholders not communities = less abundance for people, more for profiteers.
Growing consumption means more plastic mean more micro-plastic and forever chemicals = failing fertility rates, less abundance of children and families.
Emissions aren't the only driver of environmental degradation. A clear example would be the clearance of the Amazon for the farming of beef and feedstocks. Even if beef was a zero emission food, the clearance of forest to make way for it's associated industry would still cause vast environmental degradation. The same goes for the production of materials that cause environmental poisoning (such as copper and paper) or the destruction of natural environments (all sorts of mining, including for the necessary minerals for non-fossil energy production.)
I agree. CO2 accumulation is not the only negative eternality, just he easiest one to deal with.
And not all can be handled by Pigou taxation (although land clearance in principle could be). Or rather, the process of assessing the right tax for Pollutant X and site Y would be no easier than regulating the amount of pollutant X at site Y. But I claim it is possible to develop a tax and regulatory framework to make growth compatible with the environment.
As someone that advocates at the state level for nuclear energy, I’m curious as to what you’d have me do to get advanced nuclear developed and exporting to the global south (which I truly want!), that doesn’t first require my state (where it was invented!) to actually fully legalize its use. Honest question.
I agree in a way, but why pose removing obstacles to growth in the US (including to zero net CO2 emission energy) The same lowest cost policy for the US, a tax on net CO2 emissions, is the lowest cost policy for other countries.
#10 is the key. You'll see it in the fanatics in your comments. The indifference to crushing poverty in favor of (disproven) dogma is stunning.
https://www.mattball.org/2024/02/taking-armageddon-seriously.html
Whose abundance?
Growing energy use and consumption means more environmental degradation = less abundance in nature.
Large scale energy infrastructure means ownership by shareholders not communities = less abundance for people, more for profiteers.
Growing consumption means more plastic mean more micro-plastic and forever chemicals = failing fertility rates, less abundance of children and families.
Growing energy use and consumption means more environmental degradation = less abundance in nature.
Not with the correct policy, the tax on net emissions.
Emissions aren't the only driver of environmental degradation. A clear example would be the clearance of the Amazon for the farming of beef and feedstocks. Even if beef was a zero emission food, the clearance of forest to make way for it's associated industry would still cause vast environmental degradation. The same goes for the production of materials that cause environmental poisoning (such as copper and paper) or the destruction of natural environments (all sorts of mining, including for the necessary minerals for non-fossil energy production.)
I agree. CO2 accumulation is not the only negative eternality, just he easiest one to deal with.
And not all can be handled by Pigou taxation (although land clearance in principle could be). Or rather, the process of assessing the right tax for Pollutant X and site Y would be no easier than regulating the amount of pollutant X at site Y. But I claim it is possible to develop a tax and regulatory framework to make growth compatible with the environment.
As someone that advocates at the state level for nuclear energy, I’m curious as to what you’d have me do to get advanced nuclear developed and exporting to the global south (which I truly want!), that doesn’t first require my state (where it was invented!) to actually fully legalize its use. Honest question.
I agree in a way, but why pose removing obstacles to growth in the US (including to zero net CO2 emission energy) The same lowest cost policy for the US, a tax on net CO2 emissions, is the lowest cost policy for other countries.