|
Libluini posted:It's less then I'm demanding that you come up with exact methods of economic change, but more that I'm mocking you for starting with "I noticed a lot of clueless dummies like creamcheese will tirelessly defend any technology that suits their personal desires." and then cluelessly defending your own personal desire right after. Like how difficult is to understand that I'd rather see us prioritize resources for environmentally friendly activities that benefit our society.
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:There is not going to be a solution of climate change that comes from you chipping a couple percent off your carbon footprint, even solutions where you cut your carbon footprint by half or something through deep cuts in lifestyle don't really shift the dates of various limits being reached by very much time. Only solutions that shift humans away from carbon releasing technologies entirely matter, and do so in a way that replaces them so it's not just a matter of someone else just not following the proscribed austerity program, and we don't actually know if those exist or not at this point. And that is scary and does make people want to implement pretend feel good stuff like pretending that if they don't see paris and reduce their lifetime CO2 output by .5% that they have saved the day, but it's important to not let comforting lies get confused for real things that really mean anything. Yeah, I'm not a dumbass, I understand that my personal choices have absolutely no effect on climate change. But because I am an activist, and because I believe in environmentalism, and because I believe in a better world. I make changes and sacrifices in my life that reflect my vision of a better future. I try to be a role model to the people around me, I try to understand what it's like to live a low-carbon lifestyle. I want to make the world a better place and that starts with my own personal sacrifice, and ends with policy change, cultural shifts, and *crosses fingers* revolution
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
A productive, goal-focused approach: hey OOCC, I understand your few flights a year are neigh-insignificant in the long run, but consider the general principle ... every bit helps ... maybe you can consider doing your next vacation elsewhere ... blah blah What this thread is doing: crucify everyone who is not literally a tree Similarly, OOCC, I don't think your "petting a cat to trigger the greens" thing is the way to go either. Surely there can be a more useful way of talking about this, to each other? Something where the outcome is a heterogenous group of people having a bit better of an idea, and being stronger motivated, to make the future less bad?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
If you became a worldwide dictator and waved your climate solution wand and had everyone stop flying for leisure, you would do next to nothing for emissions (maybe a ~1% reduction in annual CO2 output), destroy millions of tourism jobs including many in poor countries that are only realistically accessible by plane, and you'd sink the world into a recession. Is there even like 5 seconds worth of thought put into this bullshit outrage over airplanes? If you want to slow down emissions dramatically, then the ballgame is: ground transportation, electricity generation, and CO2 sinks. It's not your dumb crusade against pithy things that overwhelmingly benefit the human race.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:ecofascist movements. The good thing about climate change is that it is indiscriminate, meaning someone like you who is dumb enough to believe this horseshit is just as likely to die as the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A productive, goal-focused approach: hey OOCC, I understand your few flights a year are neigh-insignificant in the long run, but consider the general principle ... every bit helps ... maybe you can consider doing your next vacation elsewhere ... blah blah Actually, OOCC holds the belief that the way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, as only a technological solution plus increased wealth can solve the climate issue. This is, of course, fundamentally incompatible with a belief in responsible consumption being a required step, and therefore largely why he faces constant opposition rather than simply because he enjoys a wasteful habit.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Actually, OOCC holds the belief that the way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, as only a technological solution plus increased wealth can solve the climate issue. Here's the "pedal to the metal" of this country: US carbon emissions peaked in the year 2005. We're about 15% below that peak as of 2017, and in that time the GDP has grown by about 20%. That is not only a rapid rate of decarbonization, but that rate of decarbonization is going to become a lot quicker due to renewables now being the cheaper source of electricity in much of the country, and due to accelerating purchases of electric vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Actually, OOCC holds the belief that the way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, as only a technological solution plus increased wealth can solve the climate issue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Actually, OOCC holds the belief that the way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, as only a technological solution plus increased wealth can solve the climate issue. Fundamentally yeah. You can't get the math to work out where people's individual symbolic sacrifices actually save the world. Only really truly fundamental changes get the reduction numbers that work out. And reductions that go along with severe reductions in quality of life basically are unimplementable and just a thing to dream about for global dictator fanfiction. So literally all that leaves is finding better solutions, new or better or cheaper types of clean energy and better types of cars and planes and travel and agriculture that actually are appealing enough or represent small enough reductions for large enough gains that people actually implement them in the real world. Like there is a chance there is no hope. The idea that there isn't anything you can do at home and we just have to wait for some scientist somewhere to invent a hoverdog we can ride to work and a quantum airplane battery that can fly for free or whatever is super scary, we can't even guarantee any of it is even possible at all and all of human history might be a dead end from the beginning. But that is true regardless of if you make token sacrifices or don't make them. We know nuclear power works and doesn't release Co2, so some stuff isn't scifi fantasy stuff, and we as individuals should advocate for that as much as is possible since THAT stuff can make more real progress towards a sustainable future. But it's obvious that a person has limited say in that stuff. Compared to having the morally correct hobbies and interests to greenwash their bad feelings about a potentially hopeless future that they can't actually control.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:My problem is, it seems you're much more invested in convincing some observer that OOCC is a terrible person who should be shunned and despised, than convincing anyone, in particular OOCC, to do things better. Ah, yes, the call for ~decorum~. Thing is, not only did that discussion came and went a long time ago, it also became apparent that OOCC is a representative example of a selfish and harmful worldview, and given that his argument is based almost entirely on his personal beliefs, it's impossible to discuss the subject without that context.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:it also became apparent that OOCC is a representative example of a selfish and harmful worldview I haven't harmed the world much at all. Or rather no meaningfully more or less than any of the other people that are living a modern lifestyle enough they are posting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Ah, yes, the call for ~decorum~. Thing is, not only did that discussion came and went a long time ago, it also became apparent that OOCC is a representative example of a selfish and harmful worldview, and given that his argument is based almost entirely on his personal beliefs, it's impossible to discuss the subject without that context.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To repeat, it appears you are much more invested in convincing some bystander that OOCC is a detestable individual rather than e.g. climate change and what to do about it. And you're far more interested in tone policing and decrying the harmful effects of strawman 'leftism' than discussing effects of and solutions to climate change, so...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
owlcream why are you so loving stupid
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To repeat, it appears you are much more invested in convincing some bystander that OOCC is a detestable individual rather than e.g. climate change and what to do about it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:Convincing people that other people that knowingly burn carbon for frivolous reasons There is no mechanism by which serious carbon is rendered harmless and "frivolous" carbon goes on to damage the environment and there is no realistic amount of discretionary reduction that changes the climate change timeline in a way that means anything. Pound foolish and penny wise stuff like this doesn't work and doesn't mean anything and is a misfocus of resources away from looking for solutions into trying to be morality police for petty things you personally may not have liked in the first place. Like you burned some carbon to load this thread and make this post didn't you? Your lifetime electricity usage very likely has a bigger carbon impact that a scattered number of flights of various distances. Why does the "every bit counts! no frivolous use!" rule not apply to the thing you wanted to do? Is it because each individual instance of electricity use is so small and scattered that you can't possibly count any individual one as waste and so can't be blamed for the aggregate large damage of a lifetime of use? Or is it that when it's your stuff you admit there is no real stopping you and we really just need to get the power generation you use over to solar or nuclear asap to really do anything?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Convincing people that other people that knowingly burn carbon for frivolous reasons are detestable individuals seems like a necessary step to convincing anyone we should implement any sort of policy that reduces how much carbon we burn. Like I don't know how you think you're going to get people to agree to a carbon tax, if we can't agree to a baseline of "burning carbon is bad". Burning carbon isn't bad, so your ideas about how to convince people are deeply misguided. What's bad is, as a society, producing a net increase in carbon levels in the atmosphere. It doesn't make any difference to the Earth whether we achieve this via some sort of personal asceticism, or via making regulations which provide incentives for everyone to cut back. All that matters is that we actually do it. Just to give a (painfully) basic example here, is driving around in a diesel station wagon bad because it spews CO2? What if it runs on 100% biodiesel, hence those CO2 emissions are carbon neutral (let's ignore how CO2 intensive farming is)? Are you suddenly a not-bad person? What about a poor person who can't afford the expensive biodiesel, and just buys the cheap stuff. Are they bad because they're poor, while you're good because you're wealthier and can afford to spend money on carbon indulgences? The point of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is to attempt to correct the problem as a society that CO2 isn't considered properly when making decisions. At an individual level, the only notable difference might be that gas, plane tickets, and various things are more expensive, while putting some solar panels on the roof seems like a smart decision. Economically this sort of thing happens and is accepted as normal whenever there's, for example, a shortage in copper or whatever. The problem here is that, as a civilization, we seem to be unable to take intelligent action on purpose instead of just reacting dumbly. Trying to solve this individually is just self-indulgence: your carbon footprint might go down a little bit, but then your neighbor will decide to drive a giant truck to the grocery store and you're back where you started. And why shouldn't they? After all, gas is cheap, so clearly burning profligate amounts of it isn't a problem, right? Why should reasonable people who care about the future have a worse quality of life than dumb idiots who drive giant trucks to the grocery store?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:The good thing about climate change is that it is indiscriminate, meaning someone like you who is dumb enough to believe this horseshit is just as likely to die as the rest of us. This is laughably untrue. No, climate change is not indiscriminate.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:There is no mechanism by which serious carbon is rendered harmless and "frivolous" carbon goes on to damage the environment and there is no realistic amount of discretionary reduction that changes the climate change timeline in a way that means anything. Pound foolish and penny wise stuff like this doesn't work and doesn't mean anything and is a misfocus of resources away from looking for solutions into trying to be morality police for petty things you personally may not have liked in the first place. Tyrgle posted:The problem here is that, as a civilization, we seem to be unable to take intelligent action on purpose instead of just reacting dumbly. Trying to solve this individually is just self-indulgence: your carbon footprint might go down a little bit, but then your neighbor will decide to drive a giant truck to the grocery store and you're back where you started. And why shouldn't they? After all, gas is cheap, so clearly burning profligate amounts of it isn't a problem, right?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Engage OOCC and thug, but please stop quoting them, per Arkane protocol.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:We’d eliminate a lot of airline travel if we had decent railroads in the USA. Out of curiosity, how impacted are railways by earthquakes? Is that a major concern holding them back in areas prone to earthquakes, or it it just woops there's a few warped ties we'll get a crew to replace then we're good to go?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:So long as democracy exists, civilization will not solve this problem until individuals are willing to make sacrifices. We can have a reasonable conversation about which sacrifices are reasonable to make unilaterally and which need to wait for policy, but if you draw the line at "unlimited international air travel", I'm going to invite people to laugh at you. Let me make this easy: I'll draw the line at nothing at all. The only necessity is to participate in civic activities (i.e. voting / activism). That's right: individuals shouldn't be expected to make any unilateral carbon sacrifices at all. Let me put this another way: both I and my rear end in a top hat neighbor with the giant truck should make the exact same sacrifices, whether we want to or not. My personal responsibility begins and ends with spending the time to not be an idiot and advocating for correct policy. If my rear end in a top hat neighbor wants to drive a giant truck that spews as much CO2 as a tank, they're welcome to. By spending all their money on gas at $25/gal or whatever they'll be making a statement about their priorities, and their quality of life will demonstrate it. Meanwhile, my small electric car running on nuclear and solar will leave me with enough extra money to fly overseas every so often and pet cats or whatever it is people in this thread do. Honestly I don't even know what you mean when you say "unlimited international air travel." I mean, everything is already limited by what people can afford. In a new carbon-neutral world, it would still be limited. Maybe we run the same airplanes, but airlines buy carbon-neutral gas produced via nuclear reactor power, so prices are higher. Is that somehow not "unlimited" any more? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:I understand I'm doing a variety of bad thing. And that is why a morality based system of environmentalism is doomed. You accept you are doing things that are "bad" but even that doesn't actually stop you, Nor will it ever, and certainly not on most people who are going to be less pure about it than you. The idea that you are waiting to stop until some collective global agreement is bunk, you can stop right now if you want. Every little bit either matters or it doesn't. But the deeper flaw in the moralizing system is that it clearly doesn't even assign blame usefully. My sin of air travel is a 50 page derail that stopped and restarted a bunch of times (including people posting about it while I was literally on a plane) but even for just me personally it's like... maybe 0.5% of all the carbon I've used in my life? Pretty much anything else I've done in my life is infinity worse than this, but the moral based system will always hyper focus on "egregious sins" over meaningful but mundane use. While the absolute opposite is the actual culprit. Unless the amount of travel I do really shoots into the absurd it's never going to beat the energy use of like, the heating needed for washing and drying clothes I do incidentally like a normal person over my entire lifespan and have never been yelled at about.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But the deeper flaw in the moralizing system is that it clearly doesn't even assign blame usefully. My sin of air travel is a 50 page derail that stopped and restarted a bunch of times (including people posting about it while I was literally on a plane) but even for just me personally it's like... maybe 0.5% of all the carbon I've used in my life? FWIW I flew to Europe last year, which cost as much as a couple days worth of hotels (in other words, it was a small portion of the trip cost). I just calculated using 101% reliable Wikipedia numbers that the airplane burned about 1,700 kg of CO2e on my behalf for the flight. Using figures for my lovely old non-electric car, this translates to around 6,000 km of extra driving. The average American drives about 19,000 km/year, so this translates to roughly 4 months worth of driving. Given that I drive far less than average, even if you add an extra 6,000 km, I guess this means that I'm still morally superior? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Tyrgle posted:Let me make this easy: I'll draw the line at nothing at all. The only necessity is to participate in civic activities (i.e. voting / activism). I think even at a society level there is limits to this. If we do the math and find out 30 dollars per flight would save the world I think we could bite the bullet and force it through with some great struggle, but that if we do the math and it's 830 dollars people will say "nah" now, or someone in a few years that doesn't care as much as we do will say "nah" and undo it or another society that we didn't ask will say "nah" as soon as they get the resources that it applies to them. Like I think societies have more power in this area than an individual and if a country declares cars will be X efficiency by Y year or "we will build more train lines" they do have a realistic ability to influence things in that direction. But if the sacrifices become very onerous they just lose it and compliance fails, and the power structures that enforce it just get voted out or replaced. Either in the country or by the country becoming the backwards hermit while someone else laughs at their amish lifestyle and does the thing instead. I think in the long term, and climate change is the longest term problem that humans have ever faced, you need to ultimately find that rear end in a top hat neighbor a better truck that he likes, any attempt to punish or moralize or legislate his truck will fall beyond a small area for a short amount of time. Someday he's gonna find a place or time that just lets him drive it how he likes. So "how he likes" needs to be the better than what we have. Or we are doomed.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Tyrgle posted:Let me make this easy: I'll draw the line at nothing at all. The only necessity is to participate in civic activities (i.e. voting / activism). 1) Observing and implementing change at personal levels is what expands that action to local then State college level, eventually draggint the Overton window toward progress by normalizing what you are hoping to later enact as national policy. There is an obvious parallel in the 1950s-1960s you should be able to see here. 2) Your life's story is etched in digital stone. Your grandchildren aren't going to judge you based on what your neighbors considered acceptable; they're going to judge you based on what they see as acceptable. Bear that in mind when you decide what to say and do about social progress, economic progress, and climate change. You have one shot at life and one chance to build a legacy you'll leave behind as your only remnants in this universe.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
And, to be absolutely certain, you're building a legacy--whether you want to or not.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Tyrgle posted:Given that I drive far less than average, even if you add an extra 6,000 km, I guess this means that I'm still morally superior? And that is it, the goal is so clearly to feel "morally superior", like I said this cat thing so clearly potentially less than half a percent of my lifetime carbon emissions and variations in lifestyle and location easly means it's falling totally in the natural variation person to person in this thread but that is so clearly secondary to people who just want to feel like they are helping by going after meaningless stuff like this so they don't have to think about any real questions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
I'm saying this because I can't have children and I'll never get the chance to do this: when you do something, picure your great grandchildren and imagine, from their eyes, whether your action is saying that you love them. They're going to possibly never know you. They might not even look into you very much. For what attention they give their interest into your part of their heritage, make as many opportunities as possible to shape them by example into the quality of people you dream they could be.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think in the long term, and climate change is the longest term problem that humans have ever faced, you need to ultimately find that rear end in a top hat neighbor a better truck that he likes, any attempt to punish or moralize or legislate his truck will fall beyond a small area for a short amount of time. Someday he's gonna find a place or time that just lets him drive it how he likes. So "how he likes" needs to be the better than what we have. Or we are doomed. I understand your concern, and honestly I think "we're doomed" is the most likely outcome. However, that's not really the point. My rear end in a top hat neighbor does what she does because in the society she lives in, owning a giant truck is seen as perfectly ordinary, affordable, and at worst nothing more than a minor, amusing eccentricity like wearing a hat. If gas was expensive, people would try to figure out a way for her to own an electric giant truck, and she'd either go for it or she wouldn't. Probably, she wouldn't. Either way, we're not talking about some sort of underlying social dysfunction: there are alternatives, and quality of life can be good with or without cheap gas and giant trucks. There are many societies in the world without cheap gas, and hey, not so many giant trucks either. People routinely accept that they can't own all sorts of luxuries because they're not rich enough. There are far more important problems though: things like cheap food, food shortages, and the affordability of food and necessities at all for poor people. Society isn't likely to fall because some rear end in a top hat's giant self-indulgent truck is only good as a yard ornament, but it probably will if people can't eat. People not being able to eat is basically what we're looking at if we don't do anything about climate change and a host of other environmental problems. This rather obviously means that doing something about it is not optional. We have to. If our political processes are so utterly dysfunctional that we're fundamentally and permanently unable to act over a necessity, out of fear that some low-info idiot with a giant truck will be momentarily inconvenienced when she sees the bill at the gas pump, well... yeah, we're doomed.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
davebo posted:Out of curiosity, how impacted are railways by earthquakes? Is that a major concern holding them back in areas prone to earthquakes, or it it just woops there's a few warped ties we'll get a crew to replace then we're good to go? Japan seems to have managed this: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/28/national/jr-firms-hone-earthquake-response-systems-for-shinkansen-lines/#.WvdwYC_Gyks Meanwhile: I rode China's superfast bullet train that could go from New York to Chicago in 4.5 hours — and it shows how far behind the US really is Currently, there are over 100 cities in China with a population greater than 1 million, a figure projected to grow to 221 cities by 2025. The practical result of this is that you can pretty much travel in anywhere in China via high-speed rail. It's usually comparable in speed to air travel (once you factor in security lines and check-in) and far more convenient, as I found on a recent trip to China. I had made plans to travel from Beijing to Xi'an, the capital of northwestern Shaanxi province and the imperial capital of China for centuries. The distance between the two cities is around 746 miles, making it slightly more than two hours by plane, 11 hours by car, and anywhere between 11.5 hours and 17.5 hours on a regular train. On China's top-of-the-line "bullet train," the journey takes 4.5 hours. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-bullet-train-speed-map-photos-tour-2018-5/?r=US&IR=T
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:1) Observing and implementing change at personal levels is what expands that action to local then State college level, eventually draggint the Overton window toward progress by normalizing what you are hoping to later enact as national policy. There is an obvious parallel in the 1950s-1960s you should be able to see here. Potato Salad posted:And, to be absolutely certain, you're building a legacy--whether you want to or not. Potato Salad posted:I'm saying this because I can't have children and I'll never get the chance to do this: when you do something, picure your great grandchildren and imagine, from their eyes, whether your action is saying that you love them. These are some weird, cultish posts. I kinda get an ecofascist vibe, doe-eyed children and all that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:1) Observing and implementing change at personal levels is what expands that action to local then State college level, eventually draggint the Overton window toward progress by normalizing what you are hoping to later enact as national policy. There is an obvious parallel in the 1950s-1960s you should be able to see here. If you want to calculate your carbon emissions carefully, and then as an experiment reduce them drastically and publicize this as some sort of "Look people, I can live a low-carbon lifestyle, so can you, don't be afraid of change and be sure to vote for a carbon tax!" then sure whatever, maybe that's an effective method of social activism. A lot of people who've done this have indeed done so for those reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, you need to realize that this is only really useful as a social activism activity. Most people have no interest in participating in some sort of personal crusade about CO2, and even if they did... well, they're probably kind of dumb and bad at it. Regardless, it wouldn't matter if everyone did, because personal CO2 emissions are only a small part of the total and low-carbon products won't appear without serious demand and investment. Yelling at people on the internet doesn't accomplish anything at all. Potato Salad posted:2) Your life's story is etched in digital stone. Your grandchildren aren't going to judge you based on what your neighbors considered acceptable; they're going to judge you based on what they see as acceptable. Bear that in mind when you decide what to say and do about social progress, economic progress, and climate change. You have one shot at life and one chance to build a legacy you'll leave behind as your only remnants in this universe. I have literally no idea what kind of cars my grandma and grandpa drove when they were young, and nobody is ever going to write my obituary by detailing my personal moral failings with regard to carbon emissions. Do stuff because you feel it's right, your kids will agree with you or they won't.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
i love that the technofetishists are unable to comprehend that the problem isn't individual carbon contributions and more the attitude that we shouldn't do anything to fix it, like add a carbon tax. which would make flying more expensive. which would largely fix the problem with a large enough tax but i mean, ya'll run in circles like dogs chasing their own tales so enjoy a post from two pages ago that said as much self unaware posted:Sounds like we need to add a carbon tax so flying more accurately reflects it's cost to the environment Tyrgle posted:Do stuff because you feel it's right, your kids will agree with you or they won't. radical individualism everyone, welcome to the 21st century! nothing matters! do what feels right! chase your dreams! ignore the ecological devastation we're unleashing on the earth and don't think too hard about the long term consequences! you won't die from climate change so who cares?!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
What does this thread think about carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade-what%92s-better-policy-cut-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
I'm cynical about one-off personal change. We need top-down coercion via taxing/pricing-in carbon. Use the revenues for mitigation and adaptation efforts. Edit: Just started watching this and it seems cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxdT3cpTftw&t=1315s Accretionist fucked around with this message at 01:35 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:What does this thread think about carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade A carbon tax seems less disruptive for business overall, since everyone presumably pays the same tax and can plan their finances accordingly. It also seems fair as long as everyone pays the same. Cap and trade seems like it's usually structured to benefit big entrenched companies by grandfathering them in somehow. It also potentially has big unknowns as companies can lose at auction and suddenly be unable to produce, while with a carbon tax the worst case is that everyone finds out the tax is going up slowly. So overall my impression is that cap and trade mostly exists because it allows anti-tax wackos to pretend it's not a tax, and because of the opportunities for corruption. That said I don't really know that much about the subject and I'm sure that in principle both work somewhat and are way better than nothing. Also they both have basically the same failure mode, which is that if government is fundamentally broken people will just misreport their emissions, set the prices too low, offshore them etc. and nobody will do anything about it. Tyrgle fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'm cynical about one-off personal change. We need top-down coercion via taxing/pricing-in carbon. Use the revenues for mitigation and adaptation efforts. Won't happen cold turkey. We didn't go straight from lgbt civil unions being hard to get to mostly-nationwide marriage equality. The path toward progress was blazed first by individuals declaring themselves married in defiance of their legal status, then small comminutes goosing the law to provide rights as close to marriage as possible, then the slow trickle of states providing equality, to Anthony Kennedy finally cracking. We can't respond to climate change meaningfully at personal levels, but responding to climate change at personal levels in growing mass is a prerequisite to necessary political action. You haven't thought this though from end to end. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 02:29 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
I'm also a little suspicious of your DSA gang tag plus that post. Boots to the ground of the DSA way, and I'm wondering if you're just wearing it to look cool
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Please, respect my plumage Also, I would differentiate between isolated one-offs and grassroots efforts.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 04:55
|
|