Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Carbon Capture: BUSTED!?" video.

@oru_malayaleezombie7329 Well, so long as its extremism (violent action to force change where peaceful methods have failed) rather than radicalisation (thinking progressively more divorced from reality and becoming more focused on destroying the 'other' for not being sufficiently 'ideologically pure') you're probably all right. for given values of all right. ... ... The problem is that the one tends to feed into the other, so you end up with radical extremists... which is often a self solving problem in the long run, but Sucks for anyone having to deal with their nonsense until then.
6
@@johndoe-xv3wb Yes, let's just casually ignore all the useful and necessary things that the money given to the government also goes to... Admittedly, the list is shorter in some than others, but it's still not zero items anywhere functional.
2
@ericmaclaurin8525 My understanding is that previous attempts at carbon markets resulted in various scams that made some people very rich off doing nothing much and did very little to actually change carbon patterns. Also, while some countries can manage smart regulation most of the time, and most can manage smart regulation some of the time... smart tax policy is a pipe dream, because basically the defining trait of most big 'centre right' (yeah, that's questionable labling, but moving on) parties is 'we'll gut the many and various useful things that the taxes pay for (but never the corrupt nonsense that's not working, oh no) so you pay less taxes! pay no attention to the fact that the actual reduction is so low that 90% or more of the population won't notice any real benefit and that privately owned sources of the same product/service, when hey even exist, cost several times as much per person (not per user, mind you)!'. It's pretty rare that they have anything else going for them as entities (their individual politicians can be just as capable of looking after their constituants local needs and interests as anyone else, but their higher level policies? yeah, tax cuts and 'screw the people who need services (such as clean water) and aren't rich!' is pretty much the whole of it, at least most places.) ... and that's when your 'leftist' parties even understand what a budget is and why you shouldn't just jack up taxes, print money, or force everyone to work for no compensation (this is less consistent, there are plenty of 'leftist' political parties that understand this just fine... but there are also a surprisingly large number that Don't!)
1
@xxxBradTxxx You'd have to change the entire model of owning and operating cargo ships globally... there have been a bunch of viable improvementes for cargoships created in my life time. Few, if any, have been implemented, because the people who would benefit are the operators, not the owners, but the owners are the ones who'd have to pay the extra costs to implement the changes. That and there is a persistant surplus of cargo ships (leading to rolling failures of the companies who own them... but their stuff just gets redistributed to others, with most of them succeeding and a few of them finding they're now the least good option and collapsing, with their stuff getting sold to other companies, over and over and over and over).
1
@donaldhobson8873 whether it's multiplied or divided by technology depends on the speicifc technology, yes. It's not consistent. But you do run into the problem that if an LED uses less electricity, the electrical bill goes down, which leaves a gap in people's electricity budget, which they generally fill by either getting/using something they couldn't afford to before, or being less careful with their energy usage now that the preassure's taken off. (screens are more energy efficient, thus costing less to run? sure, that could result in less electricity usage... or we could have bigger screens now that they fit in our existing energy budget! ... ok, purchase price is a bigger issue there, but it's not an invalid example. Graphics cards are similar. More efficiency doesn't result in less use, so much as better results for the same use, most of the time.) Well, unless the cost of living is going up and making everything worse, in which case the excess funds for electricity will be reallocated to other things (that's functionally affluence going down though, I think?)
1
generally, what actually happens is that much of their everything is absorbed into the local biosphere by the various insect and bacteria scale creatures, fungi, and other, smaller plants. Even forest fires, when everything is allowed to go how it should/managed correctly don't actually clear out Trees much. Oh, I'm sure Some of it escapes in the process, but unless you actually just straight up burn it, it's far from all of it. Which strongly encourages planting wetland and rainforest and such rather than fire prone dry forest, I supose.
1