Skip to main content

ELL Blog

Climate Change as a Service™

I’m tired of people who claim that climate change is a dire threat but drive in their electric vehicle which also contributed to climate change when it was manufactured. Even if the population stays flat, electric vehicles depreciate, and so producing billions of electric vehicles is not going to fix climate change, but maybe slow it down with regards to ICE vehicles. That’s a big assumption that requires developing countries to skip ICE vehicle ownership. If slowing down climate change is all that matters, we should also be building Nuclear power plants against the wishes of citizens. For example, Germany is not helping the situation.

The biggest issue however, is the dependency on oil. Oil refineries produce air pollution and no one really cares about this issue in the sense that there is a dependence on oil that either necessitates finding a suitable alternative or making the entire process net zero. For example, if people already own ICE vehicles to get to work, a carbon tax only annoys them because it’s cheaper to pay the tax than to buy an electric vehicle, which guess what? doesn’t actually reduce the CO2 stock. Limiting climate change to a specific degree in average global temperatures is a dire goal that requires making every process net zero or better, not making every process emit less.

The solution is to build sustainable infrastructure that disincentivizes Climate Change as a Service (TM). Also known as walkable neighborhoods and trains.

Canada is going through a housing shortage and the solution is always going to end up being building out, which leads to more car dependency and so I can rest assured that this world will survive only because climate change will make other places habitable rather than humans actually stopping climate change. So what does that mean?

That means we should start planning to build cities that will be forced to be built in the future that will avoid forcing humans to move again. We know that during the ice age, the average global temperature was 8°C and its currently 13.9°C. Clearly we need to start thinking of the realistic max temperature before war is a more viable option than protesting. In my opinion, climate change protestors should invest their time in making money so that if people aren’t caring once we hit 3.7 over pre-industrial temperatures, then can take it upon themselves to punish humans who are causing climate change.

All I know is that if people are getting richer, and richer people buy private jets, more cars, more climate change assets, countries like Canada need to make it very annoying to own those assets. For example, by building viable alternatives to roads.

What I don’t agree with is to simply say stop building roads and then not giving an alternative. A good example is highway 413. If Canada wants a population of 100,000,000, Canadians need to realize that means building more infrastructure. And if the people aren’t voting for governments who aren’t building the right infrastructure preemptively, we end up with infrastructure that is less than ideal.

Extended Cut

Redditors are stupid

This redditor of course finds a way to blame bitcoin. You know what isn’t going to end climate change? Cherry picking things other people like.

People who live in cities don’t need cars yet do you see them questioning why democrats aren’t putting forth a ban on cars? A car produces more CO2 emissions than a single bitcoin transaction, not to mention, bitcoin consumes energy, whereas a car actively required emissions in manufacturing, mining, and if it isn’t an electric vehicle, it also emits CO2 via usage.

Like if you really want to change the energy mix, you need to double the energy supply. If people had advocated for nuclear energy over a decade ago, that could’ve been a possibility (15 years to commission). $40,500,000,000,000 which is 57 years if excess military spending was redirected. Not to mention, that the current US debt is $33T vs $10T in 2008. So actually, 28 years starting in 2008. i.e. by now, US energy would’ve already doubled and the next 13 years would be optional.