|
I guess bill nye still has hope, also hope this isn't like 10 years old. https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/815689558572553/
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
He also mistakenly believes economists that think a carbon tax would be in any way effective on today's society. That might have been worked before the 1950s, but not now that it is so ingrained in our daily lives. It's just a wee bit different from CFCs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
you mean 1850
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:My consumption is ethical, you see, because there are so many other people also consuming the same way. The only individual actions that matter are those that affect more than just yourself. If you can convince 100 other people to restrict their consumption, who then convince 100 more, that's a good thing. But in general, turning into a reclusive subsistence farmer is an inefficient way to "do something" about climate change vs. for example, political action. It's especially stupid when people elect not to participate in conferences or mobilize politically because ~*~*~my carbon fartprint~*~*~. The reality is that there are already like a billion people with a lower carbon footprints than you will ever have; the climate is headed into the toilet just fine despite them, their collective impact on climate policy is exactly gently caress all, and having a few million westerners join them isn't going to tip the scales. If even 10% more of the population really sincerely thought climate change was a huge issue, you wouldn't have a congress and cabinet full of climate change deniers. I mean, a single fracked well has a carbon footprint on the order of at 10,000-100,000 metric tons of CO2 over its lifetime. So you can either convince 1000 people to literally go live in a loving cave, or somehow displace the output of a single tiny fracked well that only operates for a few months in it's entire existence. People are right when they say it's hard to make meaningful political contributions towards better climate change policy. But people who conclude that it's somehow easier or better to crusade against every day consumption are loving stuuuuuuuuuupid. Unless you think you found the One Weird Trick to turn a sizable plurality of consumers in developed countries into Old People, you are certainly better off focusing on even the most impotent looking political action than you are by skipping a flight or something. Just to beat the point home, delaying the emissions from burning 10 minutes worth of DAP fuel shifts the global emission curve by about the same amount as one US household having zero carbon footprint for ~35 years. The people protesting that pipeline, however meager their effort might ultimately end up being, and whatever their actual reasons were, did more to offset the current amount of carbon in the atmosphere than thousands of people ceasing all consumption of everything forever. Morbus fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Yeah ok but how much carbon do I stop by executing climate denialists in the streets?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Depends on what you do with the corpse
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
"Been a while since I checked the Climate Change thread, I wonder if there's been any positi.... ... ah, ok."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Carbon tax is still better than no carbon tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Carbon tax is still better than no carbon tax. Carbon tax is a regressive tax that directly incentivizes states to do little about pollution. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Lukewarm take: whether a carbon tax is meaningful and/or regressive depends on the specifics of the tax plan. See: Washington ballot initiative fight from this past year.
Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
I always thought the carbon stipend was a neater idea. Polluters pay into it and it gets disbursed directly to the general public yearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I always thought the carbon stipend was a neater idea. Polluters pay into it and it gets disbursed directly to the general public yearly. I'm personally more in favor of using carbon tax proceeds to fund green infrastructure in our cities (public transportation, tearing down highways and converting them to green belts, investing in public information utilities etc), but the carbon stipend is part of a really compelling broader idea of the government pricing "externalities" (production costs that are incurred on the general population instead of the company) on behalf of the public, for everything. Heat pollution, resource extraction, increased risk of seismic activity, transportation infrastructure wear etc. It's a clean unifying principle: the costs of production should be payed by the producer, not the public. I don't have a lot of problems with the seeming arbitrariness of more complicated utilitarian policy design, but a lot of folks do, and pricing externalities is an idea I've seen resonate with a lot of folks that aren't already on board with stuff like carbon taxes. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
how bout we just let people live their lives as they see fit without any authoritarian/violent government intervention
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:how bout we just let people live their lives as they see fit without any authoritarian/violent government intervention Libertarian thread is here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Oh hello, well known forums troll smoke sumthin bitch. I'm sure the ensuing conversation will be civil and productive. That said, eat the rich and lynch every denyer you know it's honestly, unironically the best way to save what's left of the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I'm a big proponent of a carbon tax (or cap and trade). What I find most interesting is figuring out who ends up paying the tax- the producer of the product or the consumer? I'm specifically most interested in motor fuels where producing the product requires a significant amount of energy and consuming the product has significant emissions as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm a big proponent of a carbon tax (or cap and trade). What I find most interesting is figuring out who ends up paying the tax- the producer of the product or the consumer? I'm specifically most interested in motor fuels where producing the product requires a significant amount of energy and consuming the product has significant emissions as well. Transportation only accounts for about a quarter of our emissions. A meaningful carbon tax would almost certainly need to be set on the folks digging the carbon up from the ground (with the understanding that the intention is for it to be put into the atmosphere). The good-governance principle here is "tax the thing you want less of". Ultimately, what we need is for carbon to stay in the ground. So tax the extraction and you're good. edit: my assumption here is that "clean coal" and related concepts are bullshit (i.e. that there isn't such a thing as a zero-emission carbon economy). Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:how bout we just let people live their lives as they see fit without any authoritarian/violent government intervention You saw where that got us, you twat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm a big proponent of a carbon tax (or cap and trade). What I find most interesting is figuring out who ends up paying the tax- the producer of the product or the consumer? I'm specifically most interested in motor fuels where producing the product requires a significant amount of energy and consuming the product has significant emissions as well. The consumer obviously, since you know, they are the ones consuming the products and services which damage the earth? Welp I can't do anything against institutionalized racism, it's not my fault I was conditioned by society to lynch my neighbor and steal his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:The good-governance principle here is "tax the thing you want less of". Ultimately, what we need is for carbon to stay in the ground. So tax the extraction and you're good. Edit: To be clear, I agree that taxing extraction is the correct approach. It's just unfortunate that none of the players directly involved with making it happen are incentivised to do so. TACD fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
How would taxing extraction work for imports?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
I think taxing the consumption would be easiest, an added emissions tax on gasoline for example. That would incentivize people to drive less irrespective of where the oil was extracted and refined. The proceeds could be redistributed to the public or better yet used for public transportation. Returning it to the public would probably reduce the transportation mode shift since people would just use the check to pay for the now.more expensive gas (but it might be more politically palatable unless the public demands otherwise).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:How would taxing extraction work for imports? Tax the imports. But considering that climate change is a global problem, the best way to combat "leakage" is coordinated solutions. TACD posted:We're in something of a double–bind when it comes to taxing extraction. Firstly, governments are loath to tax it at all because of the obvious lobbying issues. Even if they were to do it, however, the government would likely want to institute them at a level that produces revenue (meaning extraction still occurs); we would need taxes so punitive that extraction ceases altogether. Neither the government nor the extraction industry wants that. I'm not all that concerned with the feelings of the extraction industry, but one of the reasons that "tax the thing you want less of" is a good rule of thumb is that it is a win regardless of whether it generates a lot of revenue or not. It's always important to watch for unintended consequences (I have personally lobbied legislative directors against our state cigarette tax hike because it had a disproportionate impact on the schizophrenia community I work with, for example), but it really is the way to thread that needle re: incentives. Besides, it's pretty trivial to demonstrate the government liability to catastrophic climate change is larger than the opportunity cost of tax that reduces carbon extraction. Like, that's really the whole point of a carbon tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:How would taxing extraction work for imports? I was about to say, that's the actual true issue with taxing extraction. Taxing at the consumer and industry level hurts your economy to a degree but it's easier to implement in the context of negotiating with other developed nations and multinationals, whereas just taxing self-extraction simply means that extraction will stop happening in your country from non-competitive pricing compared to big carbon exporters. The bigger your economy the more impact this has, and obviously ideally you'd want all major world economies to implement similar schemes both for having a greater impact and to keep your own economy relatively competitive, but once you start reaching that point then that's when you can actually start taxing extraction directly from exerting pressure on exporting nations. Ultimately, the point of carbon taxes is that CO2 emissions have a damaging environmental impact that translates into an economic impact, and that needs to be accounted for. Fossil fuel extraction and processing industries have been offloading these damage costs to the world at large and future generations, thus profiting beyond the real value of the product they are inserting into the global economy and, because calling laissez-faire capitalism 'myopic' would be a compliment, this is where governments need to step in by inserting this cost back into the capitalist framework - but it doesn't matter where in the chain it's inserted, only that it is, and that it's broadly encompassing enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:That said, eat the rich and lynch every denyer you know it's honestly, unironically the best way to save what's left of the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this, but to live in a single family detached home and/or drive a car is to be in denial so they're included I suppose this will be my last post, I need to gnaw my own arms off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Oh hello, well known forums troll smoke sumthin bitch. I'm sure the ensuing conversation will be civil and productive. I'm not actually entirely sure he's a troll. He has a pretty lengthy and semi-consistent record, he might just be a raving lunatic. He's a truly amazing contributor to the Conspiracy Thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
The 2017 SWIPA report is out. It provides an excellent overview of the current arctic regime: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3677458-SNOW-WATER-ICE-AND-PERMAFROST-SUMMARY-FOR-POLICY.html#document/p1
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Naive tax idea that will never be implemented: Basic premise, everyone generally pays the same tax as they are currently, this will not change. Seriously increase energy costs across the board, electricity and fuel. Seriously decrease income tax. The idea that the tax increase is balanced out by the income tax deduction. The idea is that the government gets the same(ish) tax revenue and that people are generally paying the same amount of tax. The major difference is that the tax people are paying is coming directly from their energy use. This gives people a lot of agency. It will make many energy saving interventions much more profitable and will encourage people to reduce energy consumption directly. As society gets better at reducing energy use, adjust the tax rats. Usual caveats for protecting the lower classes from paying more tax would obviously be necessary and such and so forth. gently caress the rich who run 3 fridges and constant AC and have 3 cars per family and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Naive tax idea that will never be implemented: income taxes are progressive, consumption taxes are regressive
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Just guillotine anyone who ever drove a car I guess. Or switch to renewable electric whichever is more palatable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:how bout we just let people live their lives as they see fit without any authoritarian/violent government intervention this is unironically dumb and will doom the species KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:income taxes are progressive, consumption taxes are regressive It feels like you are trying to communicate something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It feels like you are trying to communicate something? never mind, just noticed your avatar
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:never mind, just noticed your avatar Good job on rational discourse, 5 stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think taxing the consumption would be easiest, an added emissions tax on gasoline for example. That would incentivize people to drive less irrespective of where the oil was extracted and refined. The proceeds could be redistributed to the public or better yet used for public transportation. Returning it to the public would probably reduce the transportation mode shift since people would just use the check to pay for the now.more expensive gas (but it might be more politically palatable unless the public demands otherwise). Returning it to the public is how most governments are doing it and not in a good way. They basically use carbon tax as a more politically acceptable sales tax (though countryside voters hate it because they realize they're getting played) and then they use it to fund income tax, capital tax or interest rate deductions for the middle class. That money then goes right back into consumption. The most egregious example of this are stipends for the purchasing of hybrid and electric vehicles which are effectively redistributing from the poor to the rich. Centre-right governments especially love doing this. Carbon tax could be good, but in the way its being used currently it's a regressive tax which hurts low-income voters while doing little for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:this is unironically dumb and will doom the species Using the future tense here. Bold choice
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It feels like you are trying to communicate something? Yeah, americans are too loving dumb to tax the rich. Better protest the use of all taxes until things are fair!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
I wonder if there would be a way you could yearly increase taxes on consumption of CO2 producing energy and put all the money from that into funding/supporting non CO2 energy. Until eventually CO2 production becomes sufficiently costly that the non CO2 alternatives are the right choice cost wise. Eventually being in like 15 years time. Except I guess this would probably require every government on earth to act in concert on this. Also probably starve and freeze the poor as an unintended outcome as fuel prices rise without the replacement infrastructure being funded/online yet due to the short time frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The 2017 SWIPA report is out. It provides an excellent overview of the current arctic regime: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3677458-SNOW-WATER-ICE-AND-PERMAFROST-SUMMARY-FOR-POLICY.html#document/p1 Late 2030's for a September ice free Arctic while the consesus slow transition model, seems extremely optimistic at this point. Since we're now at the point where a big melt within the historical range puts us there already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:18
|
|
