Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers

367 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

379

Biden Administration raises social cost of carbon (used in regulatory decisions) from $51/ton to $190/ton (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.

The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

You must have GM stock to love the Bolt this much, it’s unbelievable otherwise that somebody would invest so much energy in such a bad product. The Bolt is a terrible car compared to other cars, plain and simple. It’s barely passable to drive, has a history of rather fatal flaws (two recalls for fire seems like more than most people want), and it has almost no space for luggage/shopping. It works great for short trips in a city without kids in tow, assuming you define great as getting from Point A to B.

A Bolt is the Spirit Airlines of cars, cheapened at every level and miserable to experience, but sure, it could work. It’s an illusion of progress, and most of what it does efficiently could be replaced by electric bikes. For anything else, it’s a poor substitute for a good car, ICE or EV. Now, could there be a good EV in that niche? Absolutely, but it’s running up against competing interests, affordability for the 99% versus fair wages for the workers building the thing. It can’t be a great car, it’s too cheap and has too much money wrapped up in its powertrain to be great on its own merits, but it could be much, much better, inside and out.

It doesn’t need to feel so cheap, that’s the MBA set dictating the corner cutting to eke out every cent of profit. Like I said in another comment, my first car was a base model Tercel, so I have a good idea of what a car can feel like even when built on the cheap. The Bolt doesn’t even hit that level of quality, and a Tercel isn’t exactly a luxury vehicle. But don’t believe me, go test drive a base model Civic or Mazda3 and then a Bolt. You’ll immediately notice the difference in everything you touch and see inside, let alone when you open the trunk/hatch to see the available space. But hey, I’m just a guy ranting on the Internet, having driven hundreds of thousands of miles in Toyotas, Hondas, Mazdas, and oh, right, some very unfortunate time in a Bolt.

I want a better economy car that’s an EV; I’d love to have better options. The current offerings just aren’t there yet, and there’s little reason to think they will get there when the motivation is profit instead of the planet.