There will always be winners and losers with any change.
Plantation owners definitely lost a lot of wealth due to the abolition of slavery, while the industrial tycoons gained a lot of wealth.
Switching away from fossil fuels will similarly benefit those who invest in the energy sources and technologies of the future, while shrinking the fortune of those dependent on fossil fuels.
Already, some forms of fossil energy are losing new investment.
For example, the high profile Keystone XL pipeline was never built, even though Trump approved it, because investors doubted its profit potential. Biden revoking the permit was mostly symbolic.
Now, I do otherwise agree with this more nuanced take of yours. Morality needs to be aligned with financial incentives in order to achieve change. That’s just how our current world works and I don’t see that basic mechanism changing.
So it makes more sense to focus on making fossil fuels less profitable, e.g. through taxation.
I agree with your conclusion, but I don’t agree that it’s feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you’d just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I’d love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.
There will always be winners and losers with any change.
Plantation owners definitely lost a lot of wealth due to the abolition of slavery, while the industrial tycoons gained a lot of wealth.
Switching away from fossil fuels will similarly benefit those who invest in the energy sources and technologies of the future, while shrinking the fortune of those dependent on fossil fuels.
Already, some forms of fossil energy are losing new investment.
For example, the high profile Keystone XL pipeline was never built, even though Trump approved it, because investors doubted its profit potential. Biden revoking the permit was mostly symbolic.
Now, I do otherwise agree with this more nuanced take of yours. Morality needs to be aligned with financial incentives in order to achieve change. That’s just how our current world works and I don’t see that basic mechanism changing.
So it makes more sense to focus on making fossil fuels less profitable, e.g. through taxation.
I agree with your conclusion, but I don’t agree that it’s feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you’d just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I’d love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.
Once the alternatives become more profitable, they will move to legislate in their favour.
Here in Europe, we already have billions in subsidies for wind and solar energy.
Will it go smoothly, or fast enough?
No, I think 3 degrees warming is basically inevitable at this point.
But it will happen, about five decades later than it should have happened.
Guess we will see in the next two decades.
I hope for everyone’s sake you’re right, but if that does come to pass it will come as a surprise to me.