Maybe for a long tail - but I think there were a few reports from other places that phaseout can happen faster than expected :)
I am just worried that fossil prices drop because nobody buys them, making it super cheap again.
It could happen quickly, in theory. Energy also could have been largely decarbonised by 2010, in theory. France accidentally decarbonized most of thier grid in the 70s after all, and we’ve had scientific consensus that it needed to be done urgently since about then aswell. Better panels, heat pumps, and batteries help, but we’re never necessarily. Instead, we built massive numbers of brand new coal plants and we have since added far more carbon to the atmosphere knowingly in the last fifty years than we had in all of human history before that.
There is no magic here, China for all its fault is set up to produce enough solar panels next year to power the entire US grid, and do so every year thereafter for decades to come. Electric cars make up over seventy percent of new car purchases in Norway. There is no magic reason the US and Canada couldn’t have done the same.
Companies like Shell and BP can’t exsist in 30 years, at least not as anything larger than a specialty lubricant supplier, and they know it. They also know that thier jobs depend on the company growing, no matter the cost. They will spend whatever it takes for each delay, each legal battle, massively fund any hate group, take as many politicians to fancy dinners where they lie their asses off about a green transition, so long as it buys just one more day of profits.
I think it's worth noting that being counted among the "rich people" (defined by the article as the world's top 10% by income or wealth) starts at a number a lot lower than most Americans (or Westerners in general) might realize: $122,100/year measured by income, or $771,300 measured by net worth. (Source: World Inequality Report 2022, page 9.) In fact, even that second figure might be (vastly) overstated, because another paper I found claims that it only takes $138,346 net worth to be in the top 10%, and $1,146,685 gets you into the top 1%! (Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute Global Wealth Report 2022, page 22.)
In other words, a Hell of a lot of those global rich people are Americans who are deluding themselves to think they're middle-class and not part of the problem. We're not talking about just Musk and Bezos and shit; we're talking about you and me. Literally, in fact: at least according to the Credit Suisse definition, I myself am one of the rich people @z3rOR0ne wants to eat!
Uh, no. I get that that’s a popular thing to say but it’s just that lots of things that are profitable to use cause cancer. You’re just letting megacorps get away with killing us by repeating their nonsensical propaganda. The WHO has a list - you should look at it.
“Transport, especially car use, is a major factor in the sky-high emissions of the richest 10%, with these emissions 20-40 times higher than the transport emissions of the poorest 10% in the countries analysed.”
This is why EV’s are anything but a solution to the climate crisis.
Motor yachts, speedboats, super yachts yeah, but not your average privately owned, normal sized sailboat. Average private sailboat sails majority of the time and uses a mix of solar/wind/hydro for electric, unlike that fucking monstrity of Bezos with its fucking chase ship and helicopters.
They would never register the yacht in the states then. It's a good idea, and should happen, but the loopholes are there for them to exploit, and it needs to stop.
The problem is: There are nearly no private jets. The rich would be stupid to own their own planes for tax reasons. So the planes are usually officially owned by a charter company. That this very plane is only available for that customer - who coincidentally also pays "service frees" or whatever for all inspections, upgrades and checks - does not invalidate that it is technically "chartered".
Any flight done is a chartered flight, performed by a commercial entity.
While I am surprised that france is so active here I welcome the push for other countries as well.
But as far as I read the other linked article about frances "ban" in detail it seems the regulation itself goes not very deep.
And I am skeptic about the outcome. The talks about this regulation were more directed towards:" give the small people some bait..." and are only impacting 3 routes in france.
But anyway, as its stated, its a small step into right direction.
then a new law yet to be implemented is not evidence to the contrary.
Just like tax laws, it's extraordinarily difficult to legislate the behavior of very wealthy people because they have more resources with which to develop work arounds than the regulators have to restrict them.
It's the same argument as banning private schools - if the rich have to use the same infrastructure as the rest of us, they've got less incentive to dismantle it.
I feel like the "ban X" trend is extremely lazy. The real problem is that carbon emissions are an externality; the cost of emissions aren't factored into the cost of doing business. It's basic economics. Industry, commerce, and consumers have no reason to account for carbon emissions, and so the overwhelming systemic pressure is to continue business at usual.
Carbon emissions aren't "immoral" in the same sense that theft or murder are, but they absolutely impose an ecological cost. Outlawing carbon emissions is not only unreasonable and politically impossible, but I would also argue unethical. As much as we altruistically fight to find alternatives, it's likely that several industries vital to our economy will have to continue to emit carbon. The least we can do is compensate society for the shared ecological cost.
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
Oldest