|
twodot posted:If we're properly pricing externalities, don't we need to spend that money on fixing externalities (not necessarily poor people) to have any chance of solving anything? there's plenty of money and funding to go around. right now we're dealing with unprecedented global inequality and ultimately a carbon tax can help solve multiple problems at once. also, linking the idea of carbon mitigation with prosperity for the masses is a good first step to take in order to get more people to "buy in" on more aggressive climate mitigation strategies (like a national jobs program for the masses of unemployed people that could be planting trees, painting buildings white, infrastructure projects, etc) in short, a carbon tax isn't a magical bullet, it's just a requirement and a good starting point
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
self unaware posted:there's plenty of money and funding to go around. right now we're dealing with unprecedented global inequality and ultimately a carbon tax can help solve multiple problems at once. also, linking the idea of carbon mitigation with prosperity for the masses is a good first step to take in order to get more people to "buy in" on more aggressive climate mitigation strategies (like a national jobs program for the masses of unemployed people that could be planting trees, painting buildings white, infrastructure projects, etc)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree carbon tax is good, but properly pricing externalities and then spending that money on things other than the externalities you are concerned about makes no sense. And responding "we have plenty of money" also makes no sense. Your plan is to make a carbon tax and spend it on poor people, and then spend money from general revenue on fixing the problems created by carbon, why do that? A carbon tax that funds fixing problems created by carbon and spending money from general revenue on helping poor people makes like 10x more sense. look I'm not opposed to doing both at the same time, I just think there's value in linking climate mitigation and prosperity to the masses (at this time, especially in America) and it's a way to kill two birds with one stone at the end of the day America won't do any of this and it's more of a rhetorical exercise more than anything, but that's my justification behind it. you're right in that there are much more ideal ways to go about it and a carbon tax probably shouldn't be linked to social programs, it's just that a carbon tax (should) will have a massive impact on the price of every day products and people are going to be pissed if they are priced out of their lifestyles. I'm ok with the well off getting priced out of their lifestyles (like the guy who wants to fly internationally to pet cats on a regular basis) but for many poor people putting that sort of financial pressure on them is pretty unconscionable imo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
self unaware posted:giving the money to poor people just ensures the carbon tax isn't regressive, it's not the method by which we solve climate change. what solves climate change is properly pricing externalities into existing markets (or destroying those markets and replacing them with a system that does) If we took elon musk and chopped him up and gave all his money to a thousand starving homeless people they absolutely will generate vastly more carbon than he did even if you include taxes. (unless you mean taxes so high they can't have houses or food still in which case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) Making people not poor is good and moral and the right thing to do but a stinker for helping the climate. You basically have to solve the climate problem then account that also solving poverty makes it even harder to solve. Still should do it, but poor people use very little resources and making them not poor makes that stop
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Making people not poor is good and moral and the right thing to do but a stinker for helping the climate. You basically have to solve the climate problem then account that also solving poverty makes it even harder to solve. Still should do it, but poor people use very little resources and making them not poor makes that stop funny how you'll defend your right to airplanes but when it comes to giving the global (and local) poor shelter, food, access to medical care, education, etc it's a step too far and no, "solving" the climate problem doesn't matter if we do it by keeping billions in poverty like yeah we have to solve both problems, no loving duh. maybe try offering solutions other than clogging up the the thread with "where is this fabulous train that can replace airplanes?!" like anyone should give two fucks about the global rich's right to "finding themselves" through the magic of international tourism 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Honestly I find this baffling. Do you really believe the actual science on tipping points has little to no relevance to a discussion of tipping points? Every single one of them?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
self unaware posted:funny how you'll defend your right to airplanes but when it comes to giving the global (and local) poor shelter, food, access to medical care, education, etc it's a step too far Funny that you can't imagine that something can be good and moral and also harmful to the environment. A carbon tax that made less people poor is good because it makes less people poor but it's not gonna reduce carbon any. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Obviously the science is relevant when discussing tipping points - my point is that discussing the tipping points themselves is a sidetrack, because their relevance to climate change solutions can be summed up as "We don't know, but they might really gently caress us up" with the followup of "So let's err on the side of caution". The more you can ground those assertions in actual science, the better your case will be for action. A potential tipping point that's purely hypothetical, consigned to the far future or an extreme warming scenario, or simply seems unlikely to occur, is less relevant to climate solutions than something like the collapse of the WAIS which may be beginning right now. I really do not understand the desire to divorce this issue from the actual science and rely purely on an axiomatic principle that it's preferable to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Funny that you can't imagine that something can be good and moral and also harmful to the environment. ill leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the difference between giving homeless people homes and you flying around the world to pet cats and why it might make sense to do the former and restrict the latter even if the carbon costs of the former are higher
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Anything that fundamentally alters the ability of future humans to engage with our Earth in a meaningful, sustainable way is immoral. Nothing funny about it. Let's face it though, it doesn't matter if kids in the future don't know what a forest is as long as some rear end in a top hat can pet his fuckin' cats.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
I legitimately and unironically feel super bad for people who have so little connection with the natural world that they're willing to write it off with nary an afterthought. It's like a bunch of incels talking about women.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
a carbon tax that helped end poverty would net increase the carbon in the air. Carbon isn't some physical manifestation of sin, good actions don't reduce it and bad actions don't increase it, something can be bad and decrease it or good and increase it. If we make a carbon tax that helps poor people that is cool, but someone else still needs to fix climate change while that carbon tax makes the issue worse.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:a carbon tax that helped end poverty would net increase the carbon in the air. it's almost as if self unaware posted:in short, a carbon tax isn't a magical bullet, it's just a requirement and a good starting point but yes, keep going on about how poverty is good for the climate so we can't possibly ameliorate it, im sure that will win you lots of friends here while you simultaneously defend the excesses of the 1% on completely absurd grounds. it's almost as if you're a winner in today's world and preserving that spot is more important than trying to bring about economic and ecological justice. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
self unaware posted:but yes, keep going on about how poverty is good for the climate so we can't possibly ameliorate it, We should ameliorate it. It also has great potential it will be bad for the environment. Both things can be true at once.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Carbon taxes help the environment by forcing externalities to be accounted for by the system, increasing costs which in turn result in a curbing of consumption and incentive for higher efficiency and investment in alternatives. This is true regardless of where the tax money goes (unless it's funneled directly back into carbon). Investing it in sustainable development for the impoverished isn't the most efficient use if the goal is the absolute reduction of emissions, but it's not a net negative - at worst, it's a redistribution.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The more you can ground those assertions in actual science, the better your case will be for action. A potential tipping point that's purely hypothetical, consigned to the far future or an extreme warming scenario, or simply seems unlikely to occur, is less relevant to climate solutions than something like the collapse of the WAIS which may be beginning right now. I really do not understand the desire to divorce this issue from the actual science and rely purely on an axiomatic principle that it's preferable to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. If we're talking specific solutions, then absolutely, bring the science in. We might not know the exact effect of different levels of CO2-concentration in the atmosphere, but it's relatively simple to compare the sequestering ability of various solution vs. their costs. Climate mitigation strategies are a bit more varied in terms of the science - some are essentially just what we do now but more, others require a bit more thinking, but of course science and technical knowledge is also relevant here. Thug Lessons posted:A potential tipping point that's purely hypothetical
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Carbon taxes help the environment by forcing externalities to be accounted for by the system, increasing costs which in turn result in a curbing of consumption and incentive for higher efficiency and investment in alternatives.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
In your example? You've reduced drunk driving by diminishing alcohol consumption.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
OOCC, do you really fly around the world to pet cats or is that hyperbole? Do you enjoy travel and make a point of petting cats along the way?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:In your example? You've reduced drunk driving by diminishing alcohol consumption. edit: This use of language is bizarre to me. If there's a factory that polluting and the pollution causes a million dollars of damage, so you charge the factory a million dollars and then spend it on hamburgers, you can't possibly claim to be accounting for an externality. You're just applying a fine. Which is good, fines should exist, they are just doing something other than accounting for externalities. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:28 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:There is reason to believe that global warming increases hurricanes but I don't think anyone specifically links it with tornadoes. Here is a graph of "violent" (F4+) torandos and it hasn't gone up or down or anything as the world has warmed, tornados just kinda happen at a dice roll A relative of mine is a meteorologist/climatologist. He says frequency of hurricanes isn’t driven by CC but intensity is. Tornadoes are more complex but the energy in the gulf may be driving us toward more F4 and F5 storms. Back to hurricanes, it’s just a matter of time before we have a megastorm hit a major US metro and really do damage. Maybe then we’ll see legal consequences to paid deniers who knew they were lying. See Exxon for example.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Reduced sure, "accounted for" definitely not, there's 900k (or whatever) of damage related to drunk driving that is unaccounted. the point is to establish a cost of carbon to society. what we do with that money does matter but even if we just burned it in a trash fire it would still work to make emitting carbon more expensive than it is now, which is the goal. you could argue that anti-poverty measures work to increase carbon so in my specific example it would kind of be counterproductive, but like I said, it's more of a strategy to get buy-in from the populace at large than it is an ideal arrangement.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
how loving stupid do you have to be to not realize that re-distributing pollution externalities to the poor can be done in a way that is green.... low emission medium density homes public transportation give everyone a free loving bike make vegetables free as gently caress build greenhouses and grow free-rear end vegetables and hire poor-rear end people. build loving windmills in poor-rear end places. I like how the alternative to re-distribution requires that we keep poor people poor, otherwise they'll emit too much lol
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
self unaware posted:the point is to establish a cost of carbon to society. what we do with that money does matter but even if we just burned it in a trash fire it would still work to make emitting carbon more expensive than it is now, which is the goal. you could argue that anti-poverty measures work to increase carbon so in my specific example it would kind of be counterproductive, but like I said, it's more of a strategy to get buy-in from the populace at large than it is an ideal arrangement.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's fine, it's just that if this is your goal, there's no reason to link the price of the carbon tax to any concept of externality. to be fair i never claimed to be accounting for an exernality, only putting a price on it. society will need to account for it, but an individual tax doesn't
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
self unaware posted:to be fair i never claimed to be accounting for an exernality, only putting a price on it. society will need to account for it, but an individual tax doesn't
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
The carbon tax funds should be removed from the money supply.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes this is why your plan is dumb. You want a carbon tax, ok that's good. You want to spend the money the carbon tax raises on helping poor people, ok that's weird and seems to be ignoring the fact that money is fungible so only an idiot would think this is any different from having a carbon tax and also helping poor people out of general funds, but sure lots of idiots exist so maybe this is politically necessary, fine, it's hard to be upset at helping people in need. Then you want to set the price of the carbon tax at the price of emitting carbon for ??? If the tax is for helping the poor you need to figure out how much money you want to spend on helping the poor and set the price of the carbon tax so it raises that much money, not hope that the price of "carbon emission" and the price of "poor people need help" magically align. alright heard loud and clear i don't really agree with this "the bill must solve both problems at once or it's bad" premise but to each his own
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's fine, it's just that if this is your goal, there's no reason to link the price of the carbon tax to any concept of externality. twodot posted:Yes this is why your plan is dumb. You want a carbon tax, ok that's good. You want to spend the money the carbon tax raises on helping poor people, ok that's weird and seems to be ignoring the fact that money is fungible so only an idiot would think this is any different from having a carbon tax and also helping poor people out of general funds, but sure lots of idiots exist so maybe this is politically necessary, fine, it's hard to be upset at helping people in need. Then you want to set the price of the carbon tax at the price of emitting carbon for ??? If the tax is for helping the poor you need to figure out how much money you want to spend on helping the poor and set the price of the carbon tax so it raises that much money, not hope that the price of "carbon emission" and the price of "poor people need help" magically align. Christ, do you not understand what an externality is? You're getting caught up in some really weird semantics. Here, I'll try to break things down for you: - Carbon emissions have a negative economic impact due to long-term environmental damage. - As things currently stand, this economic impact isn't properly taken into account while pricing fossil fuels - essentially, the whole population is subsidizing carbon, as the True Cost of its use is offloaded worldwide and to future generations. - This is an externality - an effect that isn't being taken into consideration by the capitalist system. - So, governments put a value on this impact, which is added to the costs of using carbon. - This is a Tax, because it's money the government is taking from private industry and consumers. - Suddenly, the long-term impact of Carbon Emissions isn't an externality any more, because the socioeconomic system is being forced to process it (by assigning a value to it). - And get this: the money the governments are getting from implementing these Carbon Taxes? They need not be earmarked for any specific thing, because by the mere virtue of existing, the Carbon Tax is already tackling the problem of emissions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The reasoning is that the discussion of these issues at a level of precision not warranted by the level of certainty we can produce, makes no sense at all. According to who? Which climate scientists are you following here who advance this view? And by what standard? What specific level of precision do you need? And does this apply to all tipping points equally? I get the impression you are making up an arbitrary and self-serving standard as you go along.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
call to action posted:Anything that fundamentally alters the ability of future humans to engage with our Earth in a meaningful, sustainable way is immoral. Nothing funny about it. Let's face it though, it doesn't matter if kids in the future don't know what a forest is as long as some rear end in a top hat can pet his fuckin' cats. Just to briefly interrupt your clueless ranting: forests are becoming more robust and biomass is expanding as a result of increased CO2. Warmer temperatures will also allow increased forest cover at higher elevations and higher/lower latitudes. This will eventually lead to more animal life as food sources expand. OK, carry on.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Just to briefly interrupt your clueless ranting: forests are becoming more robust and biomass is expanding as a result of increased CO2. Warmer temperatures will also allow increased forest cover at higher elevations and higher/lower latitudes. This will eventually lead to more animal life as food sources expand. More greenery doesn't mean more robust forests, particularly in light of shifting biomes decimating existing biodiversity. What you linked doesn't even talk about this at all, in fact. Increased CO2 certainly stimulates growth in C4 plants, but this might not be at all desirable, particularly in regards to vital crops showing a reduction in nutrient value despite the increased biomass, and with pest/invasive species also benefiting from it. It doesn't help anyone if the planet gets more green because it's covered in loving weeds.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Christ, do you not understand what an externality is? You're getting caught up in some really weird semantics. Alright so the US is about 14% of worldwide carbon emissions, and our carbon emissions peaked over a decade ago with continued drops since then (about 1% per annum, and faster than that on a per capita basis and per GDP basis). What would be the goal of this tax that is not already happening without the tax? You could push for faster drops, perhaps 5% per annum on an absolute basis, but the environmental payoff for whatever that costs economically would be extremely small on a planet scale. And you have no guarantees that this might not just happen anyway without your tax.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
It makes sense if you imagine a world where warming is happening fast and it's bad, and increased atmospheric carbon is leading to ocean acidification which is also bad, and where a large factor of emissions peaking in individual developed nations is due to offloading manufacture elsewhere in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:- Carbon emissions have a negative economic impact due to long-term environmental damage. Yeah but it's also a terrifyingly regressive tax so you have to decide between 'super gently caress poor people forever" or "actually lets not have it reflect the actual externality or even come close after all".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah but it's also a terrifyingly regressive tax so you have to decide between 'super gently caress poor people forever" or "actually lets not have it reflect the actual externality or even come close after all". What if you temper the negative effects it'd have on the bottom quintile through investments in low emissions medium-density homes and public transportation?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
oh come on with the dramatics how is it "terrifyingly regressive", this is essentially a sales tax on many items, but by far the corporations are going to be the biggest hit by a carbon tax, and by extension, the rich
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
self unaware posted:oh come on with the dramatics how is it "terrifyingly regressive", this is essentially a sales tax on many items, but by far the corporations are going to be the biggest hit by a carbon tax, and by extension, the rich A sales tax on food, transportation and heat and electricity would be just about the most regressive tax someone could design.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A sales tax on food, transportation and heat and electricity would be just about the most regressive tax someone could design. its not just on those things though, and it doesn't *have* to be regressive if you offset the impact on the poor by redistributing parts or all of the tax to them through whatever means you like if there was a way to implement a progressive tax where every person is allocated carbon every year than sure i'd go for that, but it's not feasible given our economic systems 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Christ, do you not understand what an externality is? You're getting caught up in some really weird semantics.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 01:31
|
|