|
Forever_Peace posted:That's why the globalist financial left is probably currently the most likely way we avoid 5C+ warming scenarios. A popular movement would be better, a green revolution would be better, but dominance by the financial class is more likely. This is... not smart. Goldman Sachs does not have a 100 year plan, none of these companies do. They are driven by short-term profitability. They are basically Tragedy of the Commons-Generating Machines at this point. These kinds of corporations are managed and staffed by people who want to be incredibly rich incredibly soon and they are all working together to get to the lowest common denominator as quickly as possible. The idea that they will begin to maximize profitability for a quarter or half century out is ludicrous. It's this kind of magical thinking that got us into this problem in the first place.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Their perspective might be that if they focus on profit a half-century out they won't exist then because their competitors will slaughter them in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:This is... not smart. Goldman Sachs does not have a 100 year plan, none of these companies do. They are driven by short-term profitability. They are basically Tragedy of the Commons-Generating Machines at this point. These kinds of corporations are managed and staffed by people who want to be incredibly rich incredibly soon and they are all working together to get to the lowest common denominator as quickly as possible. The idea that they will begin to maximize profitability for a quarter or half century out is ludicrous. We're at the point where financing projects to mediate climate change is short-term profitable already. HSBC, the largest bank in the world (outside of state-run stuff in China), is staking a billion dollar position on climate-project lending (which is considerable even for them - their yearly revenue is around $66 billion). You're right that they have no incentive to go out and spend money combating climate change on their own, establishing nature preserves or whatever. But they do have a short-term incentive to open up new investment opportunities for themselves, in addition to the long-term incentive to avoid warming. They want market-based solutions to climate change, because that means new markets, right now. They also want unfunded mandates (like "carbon commitments" or fuel efficiency standards or renewables targets etc.) because then they are the ones to provide the financing. Again, to be explicitly clear, this is not the way I wanted it to happen. I just think it's the way that it will: with greenwashed Bank of America credit cards and JP-funded wind farms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Haha, poo poo. That Goldman Sachs is going to save the world from climate change because capitalism when only 8 years ago they (the whole industry) stumbled into one of the biggest credit crunches in history, even though it is the core business, just for some ultra short term profit while loving over tons of livelihoods is some top tier trolling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Haha, poo poo. That Goldman Sachs is going to save the world from climate change because capitalism when only 8 years ago they (the whole industry) stumbled into one of the biggest credit crunches in history, even though it is the core business, just for some ultra short term profit while loving over tons of livelihoods is some top tier trolling. The fact you're trying to hand wave an entire argument into a strawman is pretty low tier trolling. But then again, by your logic literally no institution on earth will do anything about climate ever, since 8 years they did jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
parcs posted:Elon Musk on climate change Carbon taxes enjoy massive support among economists. There's no reason that they have to trigger a massive recession if eased in, either, tho this obviously has to be balanced with the pressing nature of climate change (and in any case, the long term damage from carbon emissions far outweighs short-term pain). Using P-taxes to price in negative externalities isn't even econ 101 levels of complexity; it's a shame that they're a political nightmare. Uncle Jam posted:Haha, poo poo. That Goldman Sachs is going to save the world from climate change because capitalism when only 8 years ago they (the whole industry) stumbled into one of the biggest credit crunches in history, even though it is the core business, just for some ultra short term profit while loving over tons of livelihoods is some top tier trolling. Subprime mortgages therefore companies don't want money? I'm pretty sure I'm not reading your post correctly, because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Haha, poo poo. That Goldman Sachs is going to save the world from climate change because capitalism when only 8 years ago they (the whole industry) stumbled into one of the biggest credit crunches in history, even though it is the core business, just for some ultra short term profit while loving over tons of livelihoods is some top tier trolling. Yeah I don't even know what to say anymore. Even after the top global financial companies repeatedly keep shooting themselves in the foot in exchange for some short-term profits, there are always people who come out and say "well at some point they will learn and adapt and lead the way in fixing anthropogenic climate change." It's just blind worship of the invisible hand of the free market. Do people really think the 2007 stock market crash was caused by too much government regulation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Subprime mortgages therefore companies don't want money? I'm pretty sure I'm not reading your post correctly, because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's pointing out that they made foolish mistakes in their core competencies just to chase short-term return, thereby arguing against the likelihood as well as the competence with which they may approach long-term projects outside their core competencies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Let's reverse this, what level of investment or corporate action would convince you that Goldman Sachs or any other evil Capitalists actually were pro-adaptation and pro-mitigation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let's reverse this, what level of investment or corporate action would convince you that Goldman Sachs or any other evil Capitalists actually were pro-adaptation and pro-mitigation? It's a good question, and you're right I can't think of one, I'm so cynical about it. Frankly, I don't think any capitalist action can avert this, at this point, and it needs to take the form of authoritarian and confiscatory behavior. And there's no political will for that, so we're hosed. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong by Goldman/JP funding the invention of Amazing CarbanoSink and Instant Reef Powder and whatever other miracle magic that we're hoping for. Really, I sincerely hope for it. There's a lot of suffering on the other side of that, so eating crow and marveling at Western Greed Doing It Again would be totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah I don't even know what to say anymore. Even after the top global financial companies repeatedly keep shooting themselves in the foot in exchange for some short-term profits, there are always people who come out and say "well at some point they will learn and adapt and lead the way in fixing anthropogenic climate change." It's just blind worship of the invisible hand of the free market. Do people really think the 2007 stock market crash was caused by too much government regulation? Holy smokes, if this is what you're getting from me, then I'm not being clear at all! "Worship" is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm arguing (predicting? speculating?). Market-based solutions to climate change are inefficient, regressive, will likely happen too late and be enacted too slowly, and are probably insufficient to prevent 3-4C warming. Geoengineering is probably dangerous and probably also insufficient (but who really knows). But because market-based solutions and unfunded mandates can make people money, I think it's most likely the thing we'll get. The financial industry doesn't need to "lead the way" in anything here. They don't need to outsmart anybody. They simply need to follow the impulse to make money. Like, at an absolute minimum, there are $25 trillion in assets managed in pension funds worldwide right now, all of which explicitly have long-term outlooks and obligations (not to mention endowments at universities etc). You'd think financial firms would want a piece of that pie, which requires catering to those long-term interests. Again, I'm not proposing that the financial class is going to do anything directly here. I think the government (particularly governments of the globalist left) is likely to respond to their constituency (the globalist elite) and deliver market-based climate solutions. Or, rather, that this is the scenario I find most plausible aside from "essentially do nothing". A green revolution would be awesome, but I don't personally find it particularly probable any time in the next 20 years (which I think is the likely time horizon for market-based solutions).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let's reverse this, what level of investment or corporate action would convince you that Goldman Sachs or any other evil Capitalists actually were pro-adaptation and pro-mitigation? If they closed down fossil fuel extraction operations. Other people having lots of other money-making schemes means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:It's a good question, and you're right I can't think of one, I'm so cynical about it. Frankly, I don't think any capitalist action can avert this, at this point, and it needs to take the form of authoritarian and confiscatory behavior. And there's no political will for that, so we're hosed. I think the disconnect is, we don't need magic miracles to make it "not horrible enough" for the current civilization to survive with the power structure intact. But that's far far far from an optimal scenario. My pessimism is that we'll do enough, but in the most biased towards the rich as possible. The Great Barrier Reef is going to die and I never mean to imply I think Goldman Sachs is going to save it. I'm saying that Goldman Sach et al are already and will continue to invest in the existing industries that will do very well in a post-carbon world. Take Ag for example. Right now, you can bet that massive companies both in ag and finance are researching where the best arable land will be and what kinds of GMO crops should they design to out compete there. They won't do it to save the hungry, but because if they get there first they can buy the land cheaper. Oh dear me posted:If they closed down fossil fuel extraction operations. Other people having lots of other money-making schemes means nothing. Goldman Sachs has 0 fossil fuel extraction operations. They also have a 100% renewables by 2020 goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Goldman Sachs has 0 fossil fuel extraction operations. Yes, that is why Goldman Sachs's interest in renewables is neither surprising nor terribly promising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Yes, that is why Goldman Sachs's interest in renewables is neither surprising nor terribly promising. So the Billions in renewables deals they've done isn't promising because?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:What evidence is there that a carbon tax would "surely trigger a massive depression"? I guess if the taxes are mild (i.e. ineffective) enough then they won't be economically destructive. I wonder though whether today's carbon taxes actually make a dent in global emissions, or do they just cause a country to outsource more of its high-emissions manufacturing to places where there is a smaller tax? It's nice and all that extremely tiny parts of the planet manage to reduce their emissions but as far as the planet is concerned, only the amount of global emissions is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:If they closed down fossil fuel extraction operations. Other people having lots of other money-making schemes means nothing. This is already a distinction between the extraction industry with the financial industry. Oil and Coal companies are, naturally, a problem. They are the major backers of most of the disinformation campaign and political lobbying for the status-quo. The financial industry is already dumping the extraction industry, because they know where the money is headed. Here is a joint statement by BofA, Citi, Goldman, JP, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo explicitly calling for market-based climate solutions (basically "price carbon" [cap and trade] and "let us finance $90 trillion in mitigation projects"). They are also staking unilateral positions. Bank of America: "over the past several years we have been gradually and consistently reducing our credit exposure to companies focused on coal mining. Our new policy...reflects our decision to continue to reduce our credit exposure over time to the coal mining sector globally.” ANZ (one of the largest banks in Australia): "We understand some of our stakeholders view our financing of fossil fuel industries as a material risk and in direct conflict with our stated position on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," pledges not to finance future coalmining projects and commits $10 billion to low-carbon lending. Goldman: pledges $150 billion in low-carbon lending over 10 years (also pledges to source 100% of their own energy from renewables, but that's basically corporate greenwashing in an effort to build their "brand") Once again, to be clear, I don't like this approach. It is not the ideal approach. I don't think the financial industry is "good", or wants to save the world. I just think this is the most probable way that climate mitigation happens: by the financial industry once again getting their way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So the Billions in renewables deals they've done isn't promising because? Because we can and do use renewables in addition to fossil fuels, not instead of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Holy smokes, if this is what you're getting from me, then I'm not being clear at all! Yeah I get what you're saying, but the issue with market-based solutions is that they are not based on the predictions made by scientists using climate model data. They come from changes in global supplies of commodities and speculation about technological progress, which is entirely reactive at heart. We can't afford to merely react to slowly depleting reserves of oil, to slow desertification of areas housing millions of people, and to slow rises in sea level. Of course there is lots of money to be made in a changing world, and most international corporations are looking to adapt to a changing climate, but I fear it may be too little too late if we simply look for answers in (regulated) capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
If the effects of global warming happened concurrently with the cause, the capitalist system might stand a better chance of dealing with it successfully because when the harm of the effects increases to some point that leads to investment in other, cleaner areas. But because global warming's effects take place long after the emissions are released, and continue to worsen over time, by the time the change happens it will be too late to prevent the effects (whether you define that as keeping below a 2C increase or whatever else.) Already is too late, possibly, or will be soon. That's just my impression, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Mozi posted:If the effects of global warming happened concurrently with the cause, the capitalist system might stand a better chance of dealing with it successfully because when the harm of the effects increases to some point that leads to investment in other, cleaner areas. But because global warming's effects take place long after the emissions are released, and continue to worsen over time, by the time the change happens it will be too late to prevent the effects (whether you define that as keeping below a 2C increase or whatever else.) Already is too late, possibly, or will be soon. Unfortunately, then capitalism shits that one vocal turd that it always shits: "Oh, that's not cheap"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah I get what you're saying, but the issue with market-based solutions is that they are not based on the predictions made by scientists using climate model data. They come from changes in global supplies of commodities and speculation about technological progress, which is entirely reactive at heart. We can't afford to merely react to slowly depleting reserves of oil, to slow desertification of areas housing millions of people, and to slow rises in sea level. Of course there is lots of money to be made in a changing world, and most international corporations are looking to adapt to a changing climate, but I fear it may be too little too late if we simply look for answers in (regulated) capitalism. Yes I agree (though would clarify that commodity prices and supply/demand curves is not necessarily the foundation of modern finance, for better or for worse). But I wasn't asked what I want to happen, I was asked what I think will probably happen. As for the value of that outcome, market-based climate policy is certainly better than doing nothing, but almost definitely insufficient to avoid 2C warming. A green revolution is both necessary and improbable. But in the very least, on the "how hosed are we" scale, it makes me partial to the "will be terrible won't literally be the end of the world (probably)" range. And it also makes me skeptical of the "nobody will ever do anything" predictions. That just seems lazy and unimaginative to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:This is already a distinction between the extraction industry with the financial industry. These pledges are no where near binding. Even if they were, in the US you think their group companies/subsidiaries/overseas groups would cease dirty industry in developing nations? Tangentially, speaking of nations outside the US, China knows exactly how to stop smog from overcoming their most populous cities. It's a daily, immediate impact that affects most citizens, even the elite who live there. Yet they choose not to stop. There is no hope of long term thinking in that kind of system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah I get what you're saying, but the issue with market-based solutions is that they are not based on the predictions made by scientists using climate model data. They come from changes in global supplies of commodities and speculation about technological progress, which is entirely reactive at heart. We can't afford to merely react to slowly depleting reserves of oil, to slow desertification of areas housing millions of people, and to slow rises in sea level. Of course there is lots of money to be made in a changing world, and most international corporations are looking to adapt to a changing climate, but I fear it may be too little too late if we simply look for answers in (regulated) capitalism. Destroying the world is bad for business. Changes in the global supply of commodities and technological progress are often driven by the exchange of goods and services, too, not simply summoned from the ether. There's no reason you can't use a carbon tax as a way to fund government initiatives to stop climate change while making it uneconomical to invest in things that are bad for the environment. CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, then capitalism shits that one vocal turd that it always shits: "Oh, that's not cheap" "Things sure would be a lot easier if we could go on using fossil fuels like we are now" is as much a problem in a stateless society where workers own the means of production as it is in one with private ownership. In one, you need to get people to go along with a collective plan to phase out harmful levels of greenhouse gas emissions; in the other, you need to price in negative externalities to get people to phase out harmful levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Either way, a solution is going to end up involving getting Mr. Capitalist to quit building orphan blood factories because they cost eight bajillion dollars a year now and will be straight-up illegal in X years or getting Comrade CommieGIR to cause more famines than he usually does because the kolkhoz can't use tractors any more. Forever_Peace posted:As for the value of that outcome, market-based climate policy is certainly better than doing nothing, but almost definitely insufficient to avoid 2C warming. A green revolution is both necessary and improbable. This is pretty close to how I feel, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let's reverse this, what level of investment or corporate action would convince you that Goldman Sachs or any other evil Capitalists actually were pro-adaptation and pro-mitigation? the total dissolution of themselves as a profit based company into a climate supporting group any basic competency herebefore not seen from financiers either one Mr. Showtime posted:"Things sure would be a lot easier if we could go on using fossil fuels like we are now" is as much a problem in a stateless society where workers own the means of production as it is in one with private ownership No it isn't, this is a turd argument. Central planning is literally the whole point of eradicating capitalism from anyone who isn't an anarchist. It's nowhere near as complicated as dealing with a corporate industry. There are less people. You can fire the poo poo ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:the total dissolution of themselves as a profit based company into a climate supporting group Yeah don't think you know what you're talking about when you claim Goldman Sachs doesn't know how to make money and also that central planning magically makes personnel and regional political problems just disappear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah I get what you're saying, but the issue with market-based solutions is that they are not based on the predictions made by scientists using climate model data. They come from changes in global supplies of commodities and speculation about technological progress, which is entirely reactive at heart. We can't afford to merely react to slowly depleting reserves of oil, to slow desertification of areas housing millions of people, and to slow rises in sea level. Of course there is lots of money to be made in a changing world, and most international corporations are looking to adapt to a changing climate, but I fear it may be too little too late if we simply look for answers in (regulated) capitalism. Uhhhh. You're saying that the market will deliver solutions that are too little too late. He's saying that the market will deliver solutions that are too little too late, but that's still better than nothing. Everyone else already agreed pages ago that all we're getting will be too little too late anyway. I don't see where you're disagreeing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah don't think you know what you're talking about when you claim Goldman Sachs doesn't know how to make money and also that central planning magically makes personnel and regional political problems just disappear. yeah I'm not going to accept the validity of an argument that says central planning is equivalent to telling capitalists what to do. It isn't. e; as for basic competences, 2008, you loving moron. Right now, you loving moron. The chinese market, you loving moron. The ENTIRE history of market capitalism, you loving moron. Allowing capital to self-dictate policy has never, and will never work, and you will not be able to provide a counter example. It's great that HSBC have taken a break from arming sudanese children to give 1/66th of their money in accumulating loans to slightly more acceptable recipients. It's shocking it's come to this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Destroying the world is bad for business. Concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is bad for business too, but this trend has been ongoing for a long time now. It's one of the inherent contradictions of capitalist systems. blowfish posted:I don't see where you're disagreeing? Yeah I think in the end we are saying the same thing. Something will be done by default but it won't be enough of itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:yeah I'm not going to accept the validity of an argument that says central planning is equivalent to telling capitalists what to do. It isn't. You seem to confuse competence for goodwill. Financial industries can be competent and hurt a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You seem to confuse competence for goodwill. Financial industries can be competent and hurt a lot of people. The actions by the financial industry in the lead up to the 2008 crisis weren't the result of competence or goodwill, though. They were the sum of the lot of independently made decisions that were correct only in a small scale, short term sense. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against anything here, but the 2008 crisis absolutely was not the result of the cold and competent logic of greed. It was a lot of really shortsighted people taking advantage of conditions that had no hope of playing out to anyone's benefit over the long term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The actions by the financial industry in the lead up to the 2008 crisis weren't the result of competence or goodwill, though. They were the sum of the lot of independently made decisions that were correct only in a small scale, short term sense. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against anything here, but the 2008 crisis absolutely was not the result of the cold and competent logic of greed. It was a lot of really shortsighted people taking advantage of conditions that had no hope of playing out to anyone's benefit over the long term. And I am saying that the response to climate change will be like the response to the failures in 2008. Bad, not good, but by no means economy obliterating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:yeah I'm not going to accept the validity of an argument that says central planning is equivalent to telling capitalists what to do. It isn't. It wasn't my intent to suggest that they were exactly equivalent (though I totally wrote my post like it was); my point is that painful actions would also be necessary to address climate change without a capitalist system. I'm totally on board with the criticism that extractive institutions allow people with a lot of capital to have an outsized influence on political processes and thereby prevent the imposition of a carbon tax even if it's obviously good policy. Spangly A posted:It's nowhere near as complicated as dealing with a corporate industry. There are less people. You can fire the poo poo ones. Lacking the information necessary to competently allocate resources does technically make central planning less complicated in the sense that it greatly simplifies the process of making bad decisions, though it does make it awfully hard to tell the lovely central planners from the good ones. I suppose it's not wrong to suggest that you'd end up with fewer people. Mystic_Shadow posted:Concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is bad for business too, but this trend has been ongoing for a long time now. It's one of the inherent contradictions of capitalist systems. Totally agreed (see: muh extractive institutions):  I'm more of a fan of redistributive policies that ensure a strong social safety net as a solution to that, though, because I'm a filthy liberal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:They were the sum of the lot of independently made decisions that were correct only in a small scale, short term sense. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against anything here, but the 2008 crisis absolutely was not the result of the cold and competent logic of greed. It was a lot of really shortsighted people taking advantage of conditions that had no hope of playing out to anyone's benefit over the long term. Literally the same explanation for how we accidentally geo-engineered our climate to be lovely. Trabisnikof posted:And I am saying that the response to climate change will be like the response to the failures in 2008. Bad, not good, but by no means economy obliterating. Actually we came close to global meltdown and that was just dealing with some lovely equity valuations which, to be clear, is the core competency of the people influencing policy. When you expect these people who are barely smart enough to properly fleece poor people to somehow evaluate climate change mitigation strategies and pick the best one (or whatever copped out best of worst that we're constantly going to be fumbling to express) then you are saying that morons who could barely manage their own loving financial institutions will suddenly become good at fixing a problem 100 times bigger and 10,000 times more complex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:We're at the point where financing projects to mediate climate change is short-term profitable already. HSBC, the largest bank in the world (outside of state-run stuff in China), is staking a billion dollar position on climate-project lending (which is considerable even for them - their yearly revenue is around $66 billion). Do you understand how markets and externalities work? I don't think you do. Clean Energy is profitable, and so are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being profitable is why global warming exists. Without action taken by some government entity, fossil fuels will continue to be profitable, and global warming is not going to be stopped even if their profitability declines relative to clean energy
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
If the 'progressive' solution to climate change is "the markets will fix it!" it's probably time to take the progressive movement out behind the shed, rather than let it it wallow in a belief as pathetic is that
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If the 'progressive' solution to climate change is "the markets will fix it!" it's probably time to take the progressive movement out behind the shed, rather than let it it wallow in a belief as pathetic is that Good job refuting something no one said. icantfindaname posted:Do you understand how markets and externalities work? I don't think you do. Clean Energy is profitable, and so are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being profitable is why global warming exists. Without action taken by some government entity, fossil fuels will continue to be profitable, and global warming is not going to be stopped even if their profitability declines relative to clean energy The fact that you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring is that fossil fuels are already less profitably and will continue down that decline. The writing is on the wall and everyone from New York to Abu Dhabi know it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you understand how markets and externalities work? I don't think you do. Clean Energy is profitable, and so are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being profitable is why global warming exists. Without action taken by some government entity, fossil fuels will continue to be profitable, and global warming is not going to be stopped even if their profitability declines relative to clean energy  yes, I understand how externalities work.Fossil fuels are profitable for the extraction industry.The the global financial industry has different incentives (as I have shown with an abundance of examples, they are more than happy to finance climate mitigation and drop the extraction industry cold, because that's where their incentives are).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Good job refuting something no one said. Fossil fuels being profitable at all means GCC will continue. The world needs to go 0 carbon as fast as possible, and markets will not do that no matter how much magical thinking you engage in
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Fossil fuels being profitable at all means GCC will continue. The world needs to go 0 carbon as fast as possible, and markets will not do that no matter how much magical thinking you engage in Yes and no force on earth is making us go to carbon as fast as possible. I'm saying that it is in all their best interests to stop investing in fossil fuels now and invest more and more in renewables et al. This isn't the best case or even a good case, but it is far far better than the "nothing will ever happen ever" argument that gets made constantly. Evidence already points to this happening, but when has evidence ever mattered when we can naysay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:53
|
|