Thread by @econnaturalist

As Genevieve Guenther (@DoctorVive) points out, the climate conversation has finally moved past the mindless disputes with denialists that dominated recent discussion. But we now seem stalled in the absence of a consensus about what to do next.

https://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1285583640450170882?s=20

In the face of record wildfires and 100°F Arctic temperatures, most people now accept that we face a deadly serious challenge. Now many ask, is rapid decarbonization even feasible at any cost? And if so, is there any prospect that voters would be willing to bear that cost?

On the first question, if you’re not familiar with the work of the energy engineer Saul Griffith, I urge you to read this short piece that explains how we can decarbonize rapidly:
medium.com/otherlab-news/…

Or if podcasts are more to your liking, Griffith conveys essentially the same story in his conversation last year with Ezra Klein:
vox.com/podcasts/2019/…

Griffith’s WW II-scale mobilization to decarbonize before time runs out will cost several trillion dollars annually for much of the next decade. Are there plausible reasons for believing that taxpayers could be persuaded to part with that much money?

For two reasons, there are more grounds for optimism than many seem to think. One is that behavioral contagion greatly amplifies the effect of even small incentives to reduce one’s carbon footprint.

And as I explain in a recent book, behavioral contagion also suggests why the massive infrastructure investments we need to make will not require nearly as many sacrifices as people expect:
amazon.com/Under-Influenc…

Here too, if podcasts are more to your liking, I lay out the same arguments in my own recent conversation with Ezra Klein:
vox.com/podcasts/2020/…

Naive optimism can of course be dangerous. But given the nature of the climate challenge, unwarranted hopelessness poses a far graver threat.