The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.What has worked to fight climate change? Policies where someone pays for polluting, study finds
By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
12 Comments
Login to comment
GBR48
In recent years the UK government has had to heavily support people with their energy bills, and still paid the price at the polls for inflation.
The first 5%-10% reduction may be do-able, but costs money. After that it costs an exponentially increasing amount of cash, and becomes much harder to the point where it is not politically or socially feasible to reduce any more. What works on an academic's spreadsheet won't work in real life.
Accept that people are not going to go back to a pre-industrial age. And that if you push too hard, the government gets kicked out. Replace two regimes and the third will be populist and ease up on green requirements.
Humanity is going to cause emissions, so find viable lower-emission alternatives for the things we are doing and subsidise the roll-out of them. Those subsidised Chinese EVs, solar panels and turbines for example. Oh yeah, the USG just surcharged them out of affordability. Kids love electric scooters, so there's good news. No, wait - they are being restricted and banned. Why even bother when politicians pull the rug away like that?
As for manipulating people with higher prices - you are just punishing the poor for being poor. They suffer enough already, and there is a limit to how much punishment they can and will take.
I'm guessing these scientists and academics are all paid enough to be insulated from and oblivious to the effects of their plans on ordinary folk, who don't earn as much as they do.
virusrex
Irrelevant, that is not what the article is talking about.
Again, in the context of the current situation "climate change" do not refer to a natural process but a global disaster proved to be caused by human activity and that scientists agree will have terrible consequences around the globe. Scientists also agree that actions to mitigate the problem are perfectly possible.
If your actions have negative consequences for others you can be made responsible for them, people not believing in second hand smoke dangers can still be made to pay fines (or other forms of punishment) if they smoke where it is forbidden.
Moonraker
You will pay in the end anyway. You are already paying now, in fact. Just depends on how much you want to pay and whether you calculate you will be dead before the bill gets bigger. But short-term, me-first, addictive thinking is always the stumbling block to effective action.
ian
8% is a success and nothing since 2011?
deanzaZZR
See USA streets clogged with SUVs and full-sized trucks. This is true USA FREE-dom.
ian
Seems US policymakers don't believe at all in the climate emergency
ian
Far as I know the most significant thing they did that impacts on the issue is levying tariff on Chinese EVs
Sven Asai
OK, but then let's also put the pricing of their wild dreams of a green and eco-friendly transition closer to the full costs for our societies. For example we pay more for the fossil fuels if they then pay for our miserable life in the new jobless de-industrialized era. I guess such a deal will make them a bit more silent quickly.
Jaswinder Sandhu
Interesting study, but it may not be everything.
Yururi
I think it is a difficult problem for our society. We should cooperate with each others to reduce fossil fuels emissions.
Gene Hennigh
IF it is "mother nature doing what mother nature does", when can we expect her to stop? I've never had this question answered. It seems that IF there might be able to curtail her a little, it would be worth the effort. Otherwise, we are all going to die. Maybe, just maybe, this climate isn't mother nature. It's worth the effort to try.