3 ms·

While you may have strong opinions, the reality of politics however is not as simple as you might like it to be. The article presents a solution that doesn't r

While you may have strong opinions, the reality of politics however is not as simple as you might like it to be. The article presents a solution that doesn't require significant political change by instead relying on private property and market forces.

iamsohungry 11y ago
Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are destroying the world to stop destroying the world. But even if we could make a significant dent in coal production in this way, what's to stop the coal companies from reinvesting that money in finding new coal sources and lobbying for continued lax policies? Relying on private property and market forces is generally the proposal of people who have a lot of private property and are therefore favored by market forces. I'd rather take the money away from the people who are destroying the world and devote that money to saving the world. If you want to use market forces to drive up the price of coal, how about lobbying for taxes on coal, and having the money from those taxes go to renewable energy sources? Billionaires can lobby, and at least that way, they're ensuring that the money goes somewhere useful. Let's stop pretending government isn't a market force. Coal companies have no qualms about lobbying government, why should we? Capitalist solutions to this problem have been tried and have done shit all. It's time we tried something else.
mdpopescu 11y ago
Er... what? The article suggested bribing the government to forbid other companies from mining the coal. Which part of that sounded like market forces to you?
- em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  that is a good point. For the sake of argument regarding this article, there is a presumption that the government owns the mineral rights to lands west of the Mississippi: "But west of the Mississippi, things work different. Especially in Montana and the Mountain West, the government mostly holds mineral rights." But if one does not accept the government's property claim on those mineral rights, then I suppose the act of paying the government to forbid other companies from mining there could be considered a bribe. The article is presenting a solution that works in the current state of the world: presuming the current state of property rights and legal structure.

iamsohungry 11y ago

Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are destroying the world to stop destroying the world. But even if we could make a significant dent in coal production in this way, what's to stop the coal companies from reinvesting that money in finding new coal sources and lobbying for continued lax policies? Relying on private property and market forces is generally the proposal of people who have a lot of private property and are therefore favored by market forces. I'd rather take the money away from the people who are destroying the world and devote that money to saving the world. If you want to use market forces to drive up the price of coal, how about lobbying for taxes on coal, and having the money from those taxes go to renewable energy sources? Billionaires can lobby, and at least that way, they're ensuring that the money goes somewhere useful. Let's stop pretending government isn't a market force. Coal companies have no qualms about lobbying government, why should we? Capitalist solutions to this problem have been tried and have done shit all. It's time we tried something else.

mdpopescu 11y ago

Er... what? The article suggested bribing the government to forbid other companies from mining the coal. Which part of that sounded like market forces to you?

em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
that is a good point. For the sake of argument regarding this article, there is a presumption that the government owns the mineral rights to lands west of the Mississippi: "But west of the Mississippi, things work different. Especially in Montana and the Mountain West, the government mostly holds mineral rights." But if one does not accept the government's property claim on those mineral rights, then I suppose the act of paying the government to forbid other companies from mining there could be considered a bribe. The article is presenting a solution that works in the current state of the world: presuming the current state of property rights and legal structure.