You must log in or register to comment.

wwarnout t1_j41ccwk wrote

Too bad this wasn't enacted 40 years ago.

Also, let's not forget that CO2 isn't the only emission from burning fossil fuels. There are pollutants that poison the air, which account for about a million deaths every year.


l4mbch0ps t1_j44flr6 wrote

There are also many other greenhouse gasses that don't contribute significantly to toxicity, but do have a pronounced warming affect - the first that comes to mind is methane at about 20x lifetime impact versus c02


-Coffee-Owl- t1_j415he8 wrote

In an utopian universe where producers pay extra costs and fines, taking the full responsibility for their work, without adding it to the final price, making customers to pay for that. Tell me where is that planet and I'll try to go there.


Sevulturus t1_j417u2z wrote

Yeah, I feel like the cost is just going to be shunted to the end consumer.


SemanticTriangle t1_j41bhe8 wrote

Not even. Moneyed interests will first deploy a small portion of their wealth to eviscerate and oust the policy makers attempting to hold them to account. Those lawmakers so removed, business continues as usual.

Political action on global warming is demonstrably too slow without significant campaign finance reform in every large economy. No clue what you do for the large economies with authoritarians in charge, but I guess it's comparing two huge problems.


Darnocpdx t1_j4199ws wrote

They'd simply split the companies up. Pin the blame on one, but make/promote it to look profitable on paper at first, sell it off to investors, then bankrupt it.

The assumption that they'd play fair or not find a way to skirt responsibility is niave at best.


AtLeastThisIsntImgur t1_j43nfbh wrote

It's this planet. You travel there by building a better future and agitating for change.


Flowchart83 t1_j41b92x wrote

Yeah I'm sure that'll get enforced. Petroleum companies will just put up a PR campaign with a lot of "green/sustainability" jargon and then continue as normal.

Are we going to apply this to manufacturers overseas as well?


sm9t8 t1_j41ksm1 wrote

It's countries taxing extraction and imports. If you got enough countries on board there would be scope for tariffs on everything imported from non-compliant countries.


-The_Blazer- t1_j41tnqm wrote

Yeah they'll just buy 1 billion worth of "carbon offsets" (which are a financial scam btw) from one of their shell companies which produced them by pledging to definitely not cut down some part of the Amazon they didn't have access to anyways.


RobDickinson t1_j43l7f5 wrote

Paper is UK, talking about changes to UK law in a country ruled by the Tories who are bought and paid for by fossil fuel companies....


halfanothersdozen t1_j41ewea wrote

Big Oil's lobbyists will ensure that this doesn't have any teeth and that the "affordable cost" amounts to a tax write off so they can continue producing as much as they can.


Wagamaga OP t1_j414hha wrote

The paper, Extended producer responsibility for fossil fuels, was written by an team of international experts, including Oxford Professor of Geosystem Science, Myles Allen. Their paper concludes compelling fossil fuel producers to pay for carbon clean-up could end these fuels’ contribution to global warming without pitting climate action against meeting society’s energy needs—at a relatively affordable cost.

They argue carbon capture and storage is an affordable way of ‘stopping fossil fuels from causing further global warming’.

Speaking on Radio 4’sToday Programme this morning, Professor Allen said, ‘The crucial point about this new paper…is we could stop fossil fuels causing global warming, we could do it in a generation without upending the world economy, but only if we introduce a radical approach to climate policy: this is the idea of extending the principle of producer responsibility to fossil fuels.’


HornyToad1984 t1_j41fn4j wrote

Not as long as they bribe our leaders not to compel them to do anything.


CultFuse t1_j45jvvo wrote

Lots of people are being fooled into electing the wrong leaders to combat this because of how the political process works.


larsnelson76 t1_j41oyjb wrote

The oil industry needs to be nationalized. The management needs to be fired. The workers need to be guaranteed jobs as the entire industry is shut down. The transition to an all electric future is happening now.

The fossil fuel industry is a necessary evil, and we need to make it an unnecessary evil as soon as possible.


AutoModerator t1_j414dv7 wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


AadamAtomic t1_j41eqlh wrote

" science has concluded that money is the answer."


Sometimes_Stutters t1_j4486pb wrote

Nice in theory. Reality is they will pass the price onto consumers, then tack on some extra and run a big PR campaign claiming that gas is expensive because of these rules. Consumers lose overall.


XydeTheThird t1_j46o24i wrote

Not until there is proof that the carbon clean-up that they pay for is something that actually helps. No more buying a forest to prevent it from being cut down, when it is already illegal to cut down that particular forest. Or that the planted trees are one, actually planted, and two, ensure they grow healthy. Many companies just do things along those lines and then promote themselves to the heavens for all the good they’re doing when they didn’t do anything.


KIDNEYST0NEZ t1_j41q4bh wrote

Nope, cost will be pushed onto the product and price increase will occur. Your average joe will be paying for it.