Poll: $100 Billion - Elon or Green Fund?

[stopcrazypp]

I really was not being serious and never thought any governments would give their tax payers money to Elon. The point was to get people to think about how things get done and how they can help even if they arnt in government.

And it is about the money, the US has been lowering its emissions for decades and will continue to do so. Unless you are saying that the US intends to ratchet up its emissions and that is why they got out of the Paris accord? Many of the biggest polluters committed to the accord do not commit to doing anything for years and they are still in the accord, so if they want to reduce their emissions then they will. The accord has no repercussions if they do nothing or even pollute more. There are no repercussions if they dont contribute what they committed to to. This is why the accord is a bad idea.

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, that is not the point of the poll. It is however the point of the poll to make people see that there is more then one way to contribute to an end goal. What is sad is that some took shots at Tesla and at least one person called me a nazi for even suggesting that capitalism could have some answers.

I for one am glad that we are no longer in the Paris climate accord, but I also intend to do what I can help support clean air and clean water and a better future for everyone by buying electric cars, solar and investing in Tesla. To each their own. But not in this society, you are a nazi if you disagree with someone else's beliefs. Crazy.

Oh well.. I hope I opened some minds.

I really was not being serious and never thought any governments would give their tax payers money to Elon. The point was to get people to think about how things get done and how they can help even if they arnt in government.

And it is about the money, the US has been lowering its emissions for decades and will continue to do so. Unless you are saying that the US intends to ratchet up its emissions and that is why they got out of the Paris accord? Many of the biggest polluters committed to the accord do not commit to doing anything for years and they are still in the accord, so if they want to reduce their emissions then they will. The accord has no repercussions if they do nothing or even pollute more. There are no repercussions if they dont contribute what they committed to to. This is why the accord is a bad idea.

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, that is not the point of the poll. It is however the point of the poll to make people see that there is more then one way to contribute to an end goal. What is sad is that some took shots at Tesla and at least one person called me a nazi for even suggesting that capitalism could have some answers.

I for one am glad that we are no longer in the Paris climate accord, but I also intend to do what I can help support clean air and clean water and a better future for everyone by buying electric cars, solar and investing in Tesla. To each their own. But not in this society, you are a nazi if you disagree with someone else's beliefs. Crazy.

Oh well.. I hope I opened some minds.

I think saying the accord has no repercussions is a strawman. Let's say it does: will the same people against it, suddenly support it? I think the answer is clearly hell no. You can read Trump's statement on the accord. It clearly talks about the climate target commitments being negative for America. That there are no repercussions is irrelevant. As one of the large nations, our agreement is enough to make it so America is obligated to perform (or at very least very close) or we lose credibility. Adding repercussions will only make it worse to the people opposed to the agreement.

The reason to oppose is very clear, and Trump even said so: leaving allows America to continue polluting (concrete example mentioned: opening new coal mines). Leaving is the first steps in walking back on the progress we have made under Obama (coal was moving toward extinction, as it should).

 

[Reciprocity]

The reason to oppose is very clear, and Trump even said so: leaving allows America to continue polluting (concrete example mentioned: opening new coal mines). Leaving is the first steps in walking back on the progress we have made under Obama (coal was moving toward extinction, as it should).

That is silly, Trump said the opposite, he said that we would continue to decrease our emissions. If Obama thought this was so great, why didnt he bring it to the senate to ratify? Because he is arrogant and he knew it would never pass. Coal is bad yes.. but its much cleaner in the US then it is in Germany.

 

[abasile]

Yes, in a hypothetical scenario where $100b/yr is up for grabs, Elon would spend the money more efficiently than the UN or any other government-type body. At the same time, it's not sustainable over the long haul to funnel funds through a single, powerful leader. As a case in point, benevolent dictatorships can be great while they last, but messy democracy is better in the long run.

There needs to be some mechanism for distributing aid to poor nations suffering the consequences of emissions from wealthier nations. Arguably, it would be better for nations like ours to provide aid directly rather than going through the UN. However, I see this as a side issue.

The Paris Agreement is worth supporting simply because it represents a broad international consensus that climate change needs to be urgently addressed. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to create, essentially, a sense of international "peer pressure" to compel each nation to reduce GHG emissions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That is silly, Trump said the opposite, he said that we would continue to decrease our emissions.

Our emissions decreased in the recent years largely due to the recession. If we don't continue the policies set forth in Obama's clean power plan, our emissions are projected to increase in the next couple of decades as the economy recovers. But a simple decrease is not really what the accord addresses. Rather it sets targets that means a drastical decrease is required. That's what I mean, by polluting at the previous trajectory (as Trump suggests), maybe we might see modest decreases (depending on how the economy goes), but not nearly enough to make significant progress toward the goals set out in the accord.

If Obama thought this was so great, why didnt he bring it to the senate to ratify? Because he is arrogant and he knew it would never pass. Coal is bad yes.. but its much cleaner in the US then it is in Germany.

Lol, I'm getting deja vu from the other thread. Obama didn't bring the accord to the Senate, since for political reasons, the Republicans will oppose the measure. It's pretty obvious it's not even worth the effort.

 

[SageBrush]

Our emissions decreased in the recent years largely due to the recession.

More so the swap from coal to natural gas

 

[stopcrazypp]

More so the swap from coal to natural gas

Depends on which study you looked at. Switch from coal to natural gas probably contributed, but this study showed the recession was a much bigger driver.
Recession, not fracking, responsible for drop in U.S. emissions

Basically the mapping between consumption (GDP per capita) and CO2 reduction is much stronger.

 

[Reciprocity]

You lefties turn in each other so quickly. How long did it take for people to start ad campaigns against Elon for advising Trump. I guess the right is just as bad with the never Trump Republicans. We just can't set aside anything anymore and work on things that are good enough.

Another reason I like Elon's approach. Half leftist half capitalist. Good solutions that work and are appealing.

 

[SageBrush]

Half leftist half capitalist.

All capitalist, but not an idiot.

 

[SageBrush]

Depends on which study you looked at. Switch from coal to natural gas probably contributed, but this study showed the recession was a much bigger driver.
Recession, not fracking, responsible for drop in U.S. emissions

Basically the mapping between consumption (GDP per capita) and CO2 reduction is much stronger.

I was thinking about emissions from electricity generation, while this study looked at overall emissions including, e.g., transport which is not affected by coal/NG at all.

I was unable to read the article for free but the abstract does hint at one bone of contention: there is a wide range in estimates of how much methane is released to the atmosphere from NG extraction. If the authors chose the high side of estimates then I am not surprised by their results.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Elon already is demonstrating success. Certinally his return would be for greater than the bureaucratic community.

If there is a bureaucratic community, corporations are first class citizens.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I voted for the UN Green fund, mostly because Tesla is doing well already and there's plenty of market share for them to expand. Even if they used the $100 billion to build/give away 4 million $25,000 EVs per year, that's only 5% of all light duty vehicle sales. If Tesla were to implement and invest in products for the developing world, I could see them doing well, but that's not what they do. The UN would likely do well too. Overall, whoever invests more in the developing world will likely see a greater reduction in Carbon emissions per dollar.

With that said, whether a company or government would do better depends more on the specifics of each situation than anything else. There are conditions where focusing on profit can lead to better outcomes, where it can lead to worse outcomes, or where it doesn't matter much either way. If profit leads to better outcomes, let private enterprise take the lead. If it hurts outcomes, let government do the work. If it doesn't matter, flip a coin.

 

[SageBrush]

Wake me up when trump spends $100B on grid decarbonization; then we can argue the merits of his choice over the green fund.
In the meantime all he has done is spend money to promote coal, roll back vehicle fuel economy, gut the EPA and try and castrate CARB.

He and his pack of loonies are an unmitigated disaster for the world's environment.