/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10490328
To expand on this: while it is true that GHG emission has people with money being biased, anti-GHG people are biased too, but with government power, not money.

Here's something people almost never talk about, even though it's important: Sweden has almost no carbon emissions from electricity production. How did they achieve this? Why isn't it a big deal?

I'll tell you why: they used an incredibly simple system of incentives where consuming power from carbon positive sources was more expensive. This created a stable investment environment, where people could pour money to clean energy generation and have it pay off handsomely. Not only that, but they still wanted to make the best investments possible, so all that money was spent on the cheapest, most efficient forms of clean energy, which happened to be nuclear and hydro in Sweden.

So why isn't everyone else doing this?
Because the main objective of government bureaucrats isn't a clean environment, but gaining power. Subsidizing choice methods increases the size and responsibility of the government, so officials can give jobs to their friends, exact bribes, and just generally have more power. The Swedish system was incredibly simple compared to that, and worked waaay better, but it neither expanded government power, nor created extra job opportunities to give away.
In general, the right wants more power though the acquisition of money, and the left wants more power though the expansion of government. Never forget that.