Not sure that I disagree with you at all on any specific point.
It’s just that “Considering the possibility that a technological fix will not be available” actually looks like staring down the barrel of a civilizational gun. There is no clever policy solution that dodges the bullet.
If you impose a large carbon tax, or other effective global policy of austerity that reduces fossil fuel use without replacing that energy somehow, you’re just making the whole world poor, as our electricity, food, transportation and medical bills go up above even their currently barely affordable levels, and the growth of the developing world is completely halted, and probably reversed. If your reason for imposing a carbon tax is not “to incentivize tech development” but instead “punish people for using energy”, then people will revolt. There were riots in France because of a relatively modest gasoline tax. An actual across-the-board policy implementation of “austerity” in some form would either be repealed quickly, would lead to civilizational collapse and mass death, or both. If you impose a small carbon tax (or some other token gesture at austerity and conservation) it will simply not be adequate to address the issue. It will at best impose a very slight damping on the growth function. This is what I mean when I say there is no practical policy proposal that addresses the problem. It is technology, or death. If you know of a plan that persuasively and quantitatively argues otherwise, I’d love to see it.
I agree that it’s technology or death. I’m just not seeing the necessary technology, or any realistic hope of inventing it. Which is why the comparison I used was the fall of the Roman Empire, which took Western Europe about a thousand years to fully recover from.
You might respond that I should go into renewable energy research to try to solve the problem. I did, for four years. I’m out of ideas.
If you impose a large carbon tax, or other effective global policy of austerity that reduces fossil fuel use without replacing that energy somehow, you’re just making the whole world poor
Not sure that I disagree with you at all on any specific point.
It’s just that “Considering the possibility that a technological fix will not be available” actually looks like staring down the barrel of a civilizational gun. There is no clever policy solution that dodges the bullet.
If you impose a large carbon tax, or other effective global policy of austerity that reduces fossil fuel use without replacing that energy somehow, you’re just making the whole world poor, as our electricity, food, transportation and medical bills go up above even their currently barely affordable levels, and the growth of the developing world is completely halted, and probably reversed. If your reason for imposing a carbon tax is not “to incentivize tech development” but instead “punish people for using energy”, then people will revolt. There were riots in France because of a relatively modest gasoline tax. An actual across-the-board policy implementation of “austerity” in some form would either be repealed quickly, would lead to civilizational collapse and mass death, or both. If you impose a small carbon tax (or some other token gesture at austerity and conservation) it will simply not be adequate to address the issue. It will at best impose a very slight damping on the growth function. This is what I mean when I say there is no practical policy proposal that addresses the problem. It is technology, or death. If you know of a plan that persuasively and quantitatively argues otherwise, I’d love to see it.
I agree that it’s technology or death. I’m just not seeing the necessary technology, or any realistic hope of inventing it. Which is why the comparison I used was the fall of the Roman Empire, which took Western Europe about a thousand years to fully recover from.
You might respond that I should go into renewable energy research to try to solve the problem. I did, for four years. I’m out of ideas.
For the case that our civilisation’s energy efficiency is substantially below optimal, see [Factor 4](https://sustainabilitydictionary.com/2006/02/17/factor-4/) (Lovins & Lovins, 1988)