3 ms·

I am afraid that the real goal of at least 50% of climate change activists is not clean energy, but the disruption of current elite and wealth redistribution by

by cft 11y ago

I am afraid that the real goal of at least 50% of climate change activists is not clean energy, but the disruption of current elite and wealth redistribution by taxation vs value creation. It is because of these 50% the realistic proposals like Peter's will not fly politically.

Retra 11y ago
There are better ways to redistribute wealth. And I find your ">50%" statistic to be unreasonably exaggerated.
chaz72 11y ago
Wait, what? Why do you think climate change is about wealth redistribution? Aren't you concerned at how much it will cost to protect all the cities on our coastlines if climate change is right? That's sure going to redistribute some wealth if we do nothing.
- draaglom 11y ago
  While the overall issue is not about redistribution in the traditional sense, the battle lines often are. On the one hand you have capitalist-optimists like Thiel who basically focus on increasing energy output from non-carbon sources (which tends to mean: nuclear). The effect is to maintain the status quo (everyone can keep on using energy without worrying about depleting a public good). On the other hand you have the left focusing mainly on limiting / reducing carbon emissions. That is - in my opinion - an inherently redistributive project: when you allocate carbon emission allowances, you're effectively allocating production allowances. Edit: specifically, it's redistributive on a country level: poorer countries would quite like to have a big carbon budget to burn while their economies grow.
  - chaz72 11y ago
    Was it a "redistribution of wealth" when paint makers were told "hey, stop making paints with lead in them, people are getting hurt"? If it was, was that a bad thing? I would argue it was sure inconvenient for paint companies but a net gain to society. Perhaps some level of funding should be given to these companies as we take their rights away - and perhaps not, depending on how foreseeable and expensive their issues were - but the fact is, sometimes we as a society need to force them to make changes. To my mind, it's not redistribution because the point is not to take their income away, the point is that it's time to stop. Yes, that will have an effect on their income. Not doing it will have a much higher dollar cost, and the company won't pay it directly but the country sure will.
    - draaglom 11y ago
      As to your first point: I agree with you, both redistribution of wealth and regulating companies can be very good (even necessary) things. Acting on climate change is one of those necessary things. W.r.t the OP though: anecdotally the point sometimes does seem to be to take their income away - I've met many people who appear to have chosen their position on climate change because it happened to be the anti-establishment one.
      - chaz72 11y ago
        Well, at the time the OP mentioned it, I had never heard of people choosing a position on climate change just because of who would get hurt by the process of addressing it. I still have never heard an example, and I've certainly never spoken to such a person. I'm not disputing your experience. Some people are just contrary.
TheLogothete 11y ago
In my country, green organizations, including the local branch of WWF are nothing more than extortion artists. They rally young, impressionable people by spreading FUD. They block ski lift projects and drum the media on all sorts of nonsense and broker their power to influence current political agenda or for money (when they run out). Most were created by ex-intelligence slightly before or after The Wall fell. It's disgusting.
- ommunist 11y ago
  +500. WWF, SSNC, Green Peace they are all selling FUD for a price 'one p#ss for one green piece'.
7952 11y ago
You are probably right, although there is at least a grain of sense in it. A lot of environmental issues are also social issues. This is fairly obvious in subsidence farming communities where environmental damage is caused by and directly effects normal peoples lives. In developed economies it is just easier to ignore the human factors in environmental damage and focus on the technical aspects of this. The activists are right to consider the social factors, but are certainly ham fisted and rely on the wrong metaphors.
Zigurd 11y ago
Says the man taking a Straussian at face value.
selimthegrim 11y ago
Fossil fuel companies have already priced in eventual recovery of their reserves, added it to their value and communicated this to the market (with what incomplete information they reveal). Fighting to keep it in the ground is already wealth distribution. It reminds one of the story where you ask a person if they'll sleep with you for a million bucks, why not 10,000, since you've already established what they are, now you're just haggling over the price.

by cft 11y ago

Retra 11y ago

There are better ways to redistribute wealth. And I find your ">50%" statistic to be unreasonably exaggerated.

chaz72 11y ago

Wait, what? Why do you think climate change is about wealth redistribution? Aren't you concerned at how much it will cost to protect all the cities on our coastlines if climate change is right? That's sure going to redistribute some wealth if we do nothing.

draaglom 11y ago
While the overall issue is not about redistribution in the traditional sense, the battle lines often are. On the one hand you have capitalist-optimists like Thiel who basically focus on increasing energy output from non-carbon sources (which tends to mean: nuclear). The effect is to maintain the status quo (everyone can keep on using energy without worrying about depleting a public good). On the other hand you have the left focusing mainly on limiting / reducing carbon emissions. That is - in my opinion - an inherently redistributive project: when you allocate carbon emission allowances, you're effectively allocating production allowances. Edit: specifically, it's redistributive on a country level: poorer countries would quite like to have a big carbon budget to burn while their economies grow.
- chaz72 11y ago
  Was it a "redistribution of wealth" when paint makers were told "hey, stop making paints with lead in them, people are getting hurt"? If it was, was that a bad thing? I would argue it was sure inconvenient for paint companies but a net gain to society. Perhaps some level of funding should be given to these companies as we take their rights away - and perhaps not, depending on how foreseeable and expensive their issues were - but the fact is, sometimes we as a society need to force them to make changes. To my mind, it's not redistribution because the point is not to take their income away, the point is that it's time to stop. Yes, that will have an effect on their income. Not doing it will have a much higher dollar cost, and the company won't pay it directly but the country sure will.
  - draaglom 11y ago
    As to your first point: I agree with you, both redistribution of wealth and regulating companies can be very good (even necessary) things. Acting on climate change is one of those necessary things. W.r.t the OP though: anecdotally the point sometimes does seem to be to take their income away - I've met many people who appear to have chosen their position on climate change because it happened to be the anti-establishment one.
    - chaz72 11y ago
      Well, at the time the OP mentioned it, I had never heard of people choosing a position on climate change just because of who would get hurt by the process of addressing it. I still have never heard an example, and I've certainly never spoken to such a person. I'm not disputing your experience. Some people are just contrary.

TheLogothete 11y ago

In my country, green organizations, including the local branch of WWF are nothing more than extortion artists. They rally young, impressionable people by spreading FUD. They block ski lift projects and drum the media on all sorts of nonsense and broker their power to influence current political agenda or for money (when they run out). Most were created by ex-intelligence slightly before or after The Wall fell. It's disgusting.

ommunist 11y ago
+500. WWF, SSNC, Green Peace they are all selling FUD for a price 'one p#ss for one green piece'.

7952 11y ago

You are probably right, although there is at least a grain of sense in it. A lot of environmental issues are also social issues. This is fairly obvious in subsidence farming communities where environmental damage is caused by and directly effects normal peoples lives. In developed economies it is just easier to ignore the human factors in environmental damage and focus on the technical aspects of this. The activists are right to consider the social factors, but are certainly ham fisted and rely on the wrong metaphors.

Zigurd 11y ago

Says the man taking a Straussian at face value.

selimthegrim 11y ago

Fossil fuel companies have already priced in eventual recovery of their reserves, added it to their value and communicated this to the market (with what incomplete information they reveal). Fighting to keep it in the ground is already wealth distribution. It reminds one of the story where you ask a person if they'll sleep with you for a million bucks, why not 10,000, since you've already established what they are, now you're just haggling over the price.