Blockchain and the Climate

Molby · October 16, 2018

On 15/10/2018 at 16:30, Swan Red said:
I'd never suggest you were referring to mental health but I understand the clarification, cheers.

Because I am aware enough of my motives to understand that no I do not think your ban was harsh and no I do not feel guilty about it. I said this to you in the email exchange we had at the time and have tried to make it clear since, the only way you can maintain you know better than I do on this is that you aren't paying attention. Even if you consider you have a better understanding of my motives this relies on you not paying any kind of attention to the inconsistency of my treatment of you compared to others who have had a much harder time from me.

Just how do you intend to police everyones carbon usage?
How do 7bn people use blockchain to trade carbon allowances?
What's the carbon cost for the resources to enable people to do this?
How do you determine the value?

You're banging on about the Marginal Propensity to Consume but this seems to assume that all £ consumption carries the same carbon cost and this is not true. So you can increase consumption globally and reduce carbon emissions at least in principle. Capitalism relies on growth, capital investments are expected to provide returns, not in every case obviously because speculative stuff is still speculative but constricting the global economy is inconsistent with capitalism. Addressing wealth inequality is also inconsistent with capitalism, and wealth inequality converts to political inequality pretty straightforwardly so my view is that while you can replace capitalism to address climate change with something that leaves wealth inequality intact any proposals to do that are unfair. If you are looking for a system that prevents climate disaster and there are a number of options to choose from you may as well choose the one that addresses inequality as well. Because inequality motivates growth.

science

I reckon a trillion $ should sort it out, or maybe 10 trillion

and since the whole thing relies on co-operation, it shouldn't be too much of a whip round to raise the money

the gadget in question is a kind of interface: whatever you use, or cause to be used creates a net carbon output and that gets measured and recorded - who knows? man might have to have bionic implants or something but it's no less viable than space mirrors or rockets that float around 'capturing carbon'

bigger blockchain, faster, better, stronger

big carbon cost to set up, maybe, then diminishes very quickly as solar energy replaces fossil fuels. Maybe the action takes place wherever the sun shines longest, but underground in vast bunkers that can stay cool; suppose we'd still need a lot of cooling so I don't know if it matters if it's underground or not

I don't think I can definitely be pulled up and ridiculed for suggesting remedies on the YNWA forum, that rely on future technology without having drawings and costings; maybe I can but it's arguable

value? not sure what that means - it's to do with carbon consumption so if people want to trade their entitlements, an exchange will evolve pretty quickly I'd imagine

to start with I'd make the whole enterprise government led (like a world government, or a UN that actually worked properly) but the market for carbon entitlement left to the market on the whole, as long as there's a plan to jump in and fix it if it doesn't work as it should, exactly as I view privatisation

I don't want to eradicate capitalism, so I take your point but it's my favourite system; all I'd do is put in more checks and balances so that people have more chance to flourish, and especially in places where they have virtually no chance and where abject poverty is the norm

if people sell their carbon entitlement, they get richer and drag themselves out of poverty quickly

that relies on the super rich having boats and planes and wanting to use them while poorer people simply have homes and food and medicine, but I don't care - that's already a massive improvement. I don't subscribe to equality as an ideal, only decent living standards and I don't believe for a minute that you create those by addressing 'inequality' as an end in itself

maybe, in a world where climate change is somehow not an issue, and in another hundred or a thousand years, with technology being the main driver, the word' inequality' is somehow managed out of our lexicon of socio-political terminology

who knows? I think that would be as likely to happen as any other solution that has ever been implemented or spoken of as an idea that might work

btw I'm aware this is taking place in the US President thread, which I never normally post in, so happy to stop right now or take it elsewhere 'cos this isn't what the majority of people are in to by the looks of things, and there's already a climate thread

Kite · October 16, 2018

This post is not viewable to guests.

You can sign in to your account at the login page here