4 ms·

"The world is ending, give us money." I don't know if Christianity started it, but at least since Malthus others have figured out it's a good scam. I am wonder

"The world is ending, give us money." I don't know if Christianity started it, but at least since Malthus others have figured out it's a good scam. I am wondering if anyone will mention "peak oil" here too :)

guelo 10y ago
People concerned about climate change are not asking for money.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any extra income from climate taxes on fuel are distributed back to the population in the form of tax breaks or cheaper train tickets :-/
  - ori_b 10y ago
    If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.
    - briandear 10y ago
      There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
      - inimino 10y ago
        So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
        nec4b 10y ago
        Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
        inimino 10y ago
        Did I say that? No. Maybe you should check your cold war mindset whereby pointing out a limitation of the free market necessarily gets a response about the USSR. As though that were literally the only possible alternative. To recap: ori_b: How to disincentivize fossil fuel use? [a current policy goal] briandear: The free market! All we need is magical energy tech that doesn't exist yet and makes oil obsolete overnight, haha. me: The free market actually doesn't solve the externality problem. you: The USSR wasn't perfect either!
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        Didn't downvote you but I for one am totally happy with taxes being used to help speed up this process; that is as long as it isn't just used as an excuse for increasing the general tax burden. This is why I was happy last year when gas taxes were raised and the money fed back to cut taxes and help reduce ticket prices.
      - Floegipoky 10y ago
        The free market is incapable of valuing the environment. How do you place a dollar amount on the survival of our species? Every gallon of petrol burned causes damage to the environment. How do you calculate the cost of that damage? How can the free market ever solve our problem if this very real cost is not reflected in the price of the product? Don't you think it's fishy that oil companies are now actually pushing for more taxes on fossil fuels? It's because they know that they'll get a bargain; the tax will always be lower than the value of the damage they're causing to our planet, and by the time everyone else realizes that it will be too late. They will be even more rich, and our species will be franticly scrambling to deal with the consequences of our inaction. We've seen it time and time again; the free market is prone to the same short-sightedness as the rest of the human race. It will continue advancing in exactly the same way until it is either forced to change or eats itself whole, except instead of a depression we will face extinction.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Some of them definitely are. Like sellers of carbon credits, or multiple "green energy" projects relying solely or mainly on government (read: taxpayer financed) investment, or proponents of climate taxes, or even companies like Tesla who makes hundreds of millions per year selling "green car credits" to other car companies. There's a lot of money in the game by now, even if most regular folks don't get any of it.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Are they? Carbon credits are at least in principle meant to accomplish a reasonable goal. As for relying on taxpayer-financed investments, that's exactly what tax money is meant to be used for. I mean, damn it, Tesla is the golden standard of using government loans efficiently, for the betterment of society, and even paying them back in full ahead of schedule! And they get criticized for it. I guess some people don't care about reality if it doesn't fit into their ideologies... sigh
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > Carbon credits are at least in principle meant to accomplish a reasonable goal. The argument is not whether the goal is reasonable, but whether are money is play. With carbon credits, there certainly are, and a lot of it. > As for relying on taxpayer-financed investments, that's exactly what tax money is meant to be used for. Nope, it's exactly what tax money are not meant to be used for. Tax money should be used to protect the citizens, to provide for law enforcement, defense, common infrastructure, taking care of the poor and ill. High-risk venture investment is not what it should be used for. That's what private VCs are for. And if VCs wouldn't want to touch it with ten-foot pole, maybe there's a reason for that. > Tesla is the golden standard of using government loans efficiently, for the betterment of society, and even paying them back in full ahead of schedule! Exactly because they profited so much out of "green credits" mandate, effectively taxing owners of all other cars to their advantage. Getting hundreds of millions by government mandate is a pretty sweet deal, especially if their direct competitors have to pay it.
      - guelo 10y ago

guelo 10y ago

People concerned about climate change are not asking for money.

reitanqild 10y ago
Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any extra income from climate taxes on fuel are distributed back to the population in the form of tax breaks or cheaper train tickets :-/
- ori_b 10y ago
  If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.
  - briandear 10y ago
    There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
    - inimino 10y ago
      So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
      - nec4b 10y ago
        Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
        inimino 10y ago
        Did I say that? No. Maybe you should check your cold war mindset whereby pointing out a limitation of the free market necessarily gets a response about the USSR. As though that were literally the only possible alternative. To recap: ori_b: How to disincentivize fossil fuel use? [a current policy goal] briandear: The free market! All we need is magical energy tech that doesn't exist yet and makes oil obsolete overnight, haha. me: The free market actually doesn't solve the externality problem. you: The USSR wasn't perfect either!
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Didn't downvote you but I for one am totally happy with taxes being used to help speed up this process; that is as long as it isn't just used as an excuse for increasing the general tax burden. This is why I was happy last year when gas taxes were raised and the money fed back to cut taxes and help reduce ticket prices.
    - Floegipoky 10y ago
      The free market is incapable of valuing the environment. How do you place a dollar amount on the survival of our species? Every gallon of petrol burned causes damage to the environment. How do you calculate the cost of that damage? How can the free market ever solve our problem if this very real cost is not reflected in the price of the product? Don't you think it's fishy that oil companies are now actually pushing for more taxes on fossil fuels? It's because they know that they'll get a bargain; the tax will always be lower than the value of the damage they're causing to our planet, and by the time everyone else realizes that it will be too late. They will be even more rich, and our species will be franticly scrambling to deal with the consequences of our inaction. We've seen it time and time again; the free market is prone to the same short-sightedness as the rest of the human race. It will continue advancing in exactly the same way until it is either forced to change or eats itself whole, except instead of a depression we will face extinction.
smsm42 10y ago
Some of them definitely are. Like sellers of carbon credits, or multiple "green energy" projects relying solely or mainly on government (read: taxpayer financed) investment, or proponents of climate taxes, or even companies like Tesla who makes hundreds of millions per year selling "green car credits" to other car companies. There's a lot of money in the game by now, even if most regular folks don't get any of it.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Are they? Carbon credits are at least in principle meant to accomplish a reasonable goal. As for relying on taxpayer-financed investments, that's exactly what tax money is meant to be used for. I mean, damn it, Tesla is the golden standard of using government loans efficiently, for the betterment of society, and even paying them back in full ahead of schedule! And they get criticized for it. I guess some people don't care about reality if it doesn't fit into their ideologies... sigh
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > Carbon credits are at least in principle meant to accomplish a reasonable goal. The argument is not whether the goal is reasonable, but whether are money is play. With carbon credits, there certainly are, and a lot of it. > As for relying on taxpayer-financed investments, that's exactly what tax money is meant to be used for. Nope, it's exactly what tax money are not meant to be used for. Tax money should be used to protect the citizens, to provide for law enforcement, defense, common infrastructure, taking care of the poor and ill. High-risk venture investment is not what it should be used for. That's what private VCs are for. And if VCs wouldn't want to touch it with ten-foot pole, maybe there's a reason for that. > Tesla is the golden standard of using government loans efficiently, for the betterment of society, and even paying them back in full ahead of schedule! Exactly because they profited so much out of "green credits" mandate, effectively taxing owners of all other cars to their advantage. Getting hundreds of millions by government mandate is a pretty sweet deal, especially if their direct competitors have to pay it.
    - guelo 10y ago