Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

[WetEV]

So much for personal responsibility.
I hope you take the same position when it comes time to vote.

That's not how any of this works.

Do tell.

Personal responsibility is for someone else.

[Oilpan4]

Don't wait for change. Make it happen.

Problem is it seems like people fall into to 2 categories, they are unwilling to change or want some one to it for them.

[LTLFTcomposite]

Problem is it seems like people fall into to 2 categories, they are unwilling to change or want some one to it for them.

There's a third category, I call them "climate change defeatists", how I categorize myself... those who have become increasingly disillusioned that any good done by making suboptimal decisions in their own situation will be totally obliterated by the other 99.99% doing whatever makes the most sense for them at the time. (OT come to find out all that stuff I've been dutifully putting in recycle all these years has mostly been going to the landfill)

That is why I feel that technology is the only hope. When it's easier/cheaper/better to do something other than burn stuff to attain life's daily wants and needs that's what people will do, here and around the world. As for solar, in case you hadn't noticed people aren't burning anything to run their AC, they're just using electricity as a service. Hence the importance of the public utilities as the best place to curtail the emissions. Same reason people rob banks, because that's where the money is.

I probably know 100 times more than the average person about the processes that go on behind bringing that electricity to someone's house and I'm just a schmuck. Most people don't know, aren't interested, or incapable of understanding anything about it. They flip a switch on the thermostat and the house cools down - hell these days they don't even want to flip a switch, let nest figure it out. Bill on autopay, where do you want to go for dinner tonight?

It reminds me of a great line in Amadeus when Salieri says to Mozart "you make too many demands of the royal ear".

[Lothsahn]

There's a third category, I call them "climate change defeatists"

It's not defeatism. It's basic economic and game theory. The term is "tragedy of the commons".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The answer is basic:
1) When market factors (low barrier to entry, etc) lead to competition and do not exploit shared resources, you do NOT regulate and you leave the market alone.
2) When market factors either lead to either oligopoly or monopoly, or they lead to exploitation of shared resources, you MUST regulate to protect everyone's best interests.

I say this as a moderate libertarian. You must regulate to protect consumers from monopolies and you must regulate to protect shared resources. If you don't, individuals making good choices will still result in the exploitation of consumers or shared resources, if it's economically favorable to do so.

In this case, the most obvious solution would be a carbon tax, or a reasonable proxy. Don't outlaw specific products (like the incandescent ban or air travel), just tax carbon (or a reasonable proxy). The market will sort out the best solution.

[Oilpan4]

Problem is it seems like people fall into to 2 categories, they are unwilling to change or want some one to it for them.

There's a third category, I call them "climate change defeatists", how I categorize myself... those who have become increasingly disillusioned that any good done by making suboptimal decisions in their own situation will be totally obliterated by the other 99.99% doing whatever makes the most sense for them at the time. (OT come to find out all that stuff I've been dutifully putting in recycle all these years has mostly been going to the landfill)

That is why I feel that technology is the only hope. When it's easier/cheaper/better to do something other than burn stuff to attain life's daily wants and needs that's what people will do, here and around the world. As for solar, in case you hadn't noticed people aren't burning anything to run their AC, they're just using electricity as a service. Hence the importance of the public utilities as the best place to curtail the emissions. Same reason people rob banks, because that's where the money is.

I probably know 100 times more than the average person about the processes that go on behind bringing that electricity to someone's house and I'm just a schmuck. Most people don't know, aren't interested, or incapable of understanding anything about it. They flip a switch on the thermostat and the house cools down - hell these days they don't even want to flip a switch, let nest figure it out. Bill on autopay, where do you want to go for dinner tonight?

It reminds me of a great line in Amadeus when Salieri says to Mozart "you make too many demands of the royal ear".

Yeah seems we have a lot of people who have have never been to a real power plant, seen a large boiler in person or been inside a wind turbine but they know the best way to generate electricity.

I like to go pay my bill in person with cash because I'm weird like that. I also like to look at the board to see what kind of maintenance they have planned and look at the HMI to see how much power is flowing where.

It's perfectly rational to feel defeated. China has 1,100Gw of coal capacity and plans to build about an additional 250Gw with in the next several years according to a late 2018 ipcc article I was reading.
The United states might close 50Gw worth of coal power plants during that time (that's my own speculation it may be more than that).

[SageBrush]

In this case, the most obvious solution would be a carbon tax, or a reasonable proxy. Don't outlaw specific products (like the incandescent ban or air travel), just tax carbon (or a reasonable proxy). The market will sort out the best solution.

Why tax carbon ? The more basic issue here is that externalities distort the pricing.
All I hear are excuses why it is someone else's responsibility.

Question to the Trumpers around here: do you favor paying for the pollution you cause ?

[Lothsahn]

Why tax carbon ? The more basic issue here is that externalities distort the pricing.
All I hear are excuses why it is someone else's responsibility.

Question to the Trumpers around here: do you favor paying for the pollution you cause ?

There are externalities all over our economy, oil, gas, solar, and electric cars. Personally, I'd favor eliminating most of those and just creating a carbon tax. But even if we leave those in place, a carbon tax would provide a significant benefit--reducing carbon emissions.

Why tax carbon? Because it's the thing that's doing harm. I'd also tax other products that cause AGW, such as some freons.

There are tons of excuses. The issue is complex, and we have trouble controlling other countries. But I think a domestic tax on CO2 plus an import duty based on CO2 production would go a long way. And let's be realistic, America is historically the primary producer of CO2.

I can't say I'd call myself a Trumper, but yes, I favor paying for the pollution I cause. The interesting part is most Americans do, as long as everyone else has to as well.

[SageBrush]

The interesting part is most Americans do, as long as everyone else has to as well.

That must be why Trumpers favor a carbon tax.

Oh wait .. never mind.

[Oilpan4]

Tax CO2 here, china still takes the world to 550ppm and beyond.

[WetEV]

Tax CO2 here, china still takes the world to 550ppm and beyond.

Sad for China if that happens.

China has a lot of their best farmland close to sea level. Flooding that by melting the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica wouldn't be in China's best interest. Yes, the USA would lose some of Florida, but the USA has a lot of good farmland at high enough altitudes so that it would never flood.

China would also start to lose lots of otherwise habitable land to lethal dewpoint/temperatures before the USA would.