3 ms·

Environmental policy is probably the main factor that has driven a wedge between progressives/liberals and the working class. Nearly all environmental regulatio

by api 8y ago

Environmental policy is probably the main factor that has driven a wedge between progressives/liberals and the working class. Nearly all environmental regulations are regressive when considered as taxes. The rich can afford to pay more for cleaner energy, durable goods, recycling, and so on. The poor cannot. I am not saying that either concern is invalid. Environmental concerns are real. I am simply pointing out a political problem that needs to be solved.

simion314 8y ago
You can avoid having poor people pay more by creating recycle points, you pay more on a soda can or bottle but you get the extra money back when you return the empty can/bottle. (I know some will say is not comfortable to do this so we need more education to have people understand why this is important)
- vidarh 8y ago
  In fact in Norway, bottle returns are accepted in pretty much every store or gas station (pretty much anywhere that sells bottled drinks), and have been an income source for kids or poor people for decades. It's contributed to a collection rate in the 95%+ range, so it doesn't just mitigate the increased costs, it provides income.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Exactly, so who would not like this? Someone that uses a lot and can't be bother to bring the bottles back but he would like the money returned. I know that someone could invent now some extremely rare scenario but I am talking about a big majority.
ganzuul 8y ago
Environmental and economic concerns are never at odds with each other. - It can only look like they are when you do the numbers of economy wrong.
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Environmental collapse also disproportionately hurts the poor. When a drought strikes, they’re the first to starve. At least the pain inflicted by regulations can be mitigated, while collapse leads to something like Libya.
- api 8y ago
  I was not arguing otherwise. Whenever I bring up issues like this I get a lot of "shoot the messenger." My point was not that environmental concerns are wrong but that they do tend to decrease the economic well being of poor and middle class people more right now vs. the status quo. That in turn tends to anger these classes of people right now, causing them to vote for people like Donald Trump. Trump, a super-hard-right Republican, won largely because of working class traditionally progressive economic concerns. The poor also cannot afford the luxury of thinking about the future. When you are poor your primary concern is getting out of poverty right f'ing now. Screw the future. The rich on the other hand can sacrifice for the future because they have abundance. Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. This is why I think what I call "abstinence based" environmental policies are doomed. I draw a deliberate analogy with right-wing abstinence-based sex-ed, which also fails pretty reliably. Abstinence based environmental policy is any attempt to solve environmental problems by preaching and shaming the poor and middle class into reducing consumption for the sake of some future ideal that might as well be heaven-and-hell as far as they are concerned here and now. The only way we will create a world where we care about the future is to elevate as many people as possible out of poverty. This means we must build systems that create abundance now and try to figure out how to do so as sustainably as possible. If people can't afford the luxury of caring about the future, nothing serious will ever be done about massive problems like climate change.
  - simion314 8y ago
    This article and law proposal was not about energy, it is all about cheap plastic, fishing equipment and tires, though I did not understand if they plan to do anything about the car tires. You can have good environmental laws and have the person that pollutes pay and encourage recycling. I am not from US but I don't think the elections were influenced by environmental politics

by api 8y ago

simion314 8y ago

You can avoid having poor people pay more by creating recycle points, you pay more on a soda can or bottle but you get the extra money back when you return the empty can/bottle. (I know some will say is not comfortable to do this so we need more education to have people understand why this is important)

vidarh 8y ago
In fact in Norway, bottle returns are accepted in pretty much every store or gas station (pretty much anywhere that sells bottled drinks), and have been an income source for kids or poor people for decades. It's contributed to a collection rate in the 95%+ range, so it doesn't just mitigate the increased costs, it provides income.
- simion314 8y ago
  Exactly, so who would not like this? Someone that uses a lot and can't be bother to bring the bottles back but he would like the money returned. I know that someone could invent now some extremely rare scenario but I am talking about a big majority.

ganzuul 8y ago

Environmental and economic concerns are never at odds with each other. - It can only look like they are when you do the numbers of economy wrong.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago

Environmental collapse also disproportionately hurts the poor. When a drought strikes, they’re the first to starve. At least the pain inflicted by regulations can be mitigated, while collapse leads to something like Libya.

api 8y ago
I was not arguing otherwise. Whenever I bring up issues like this I get a lot of "shoot the messenger." My point was not that environmental concerns are wrong but that they do tend to decrease the economic well being of poor and middle class people more right now vs. the status quo. That in turn tends to anger these classes of people right now, causing them to vote for people like Donald Trump. Trump, a super-hard-right Republican, won largely because of working class traditionally progressive economic concerns. The poor also cannot afford the luxury of thinking about the future. When you are poor your primary concern is getting out of poverty right f'ing now. Screw the future. The rich on the other hand can sacrifice for the future because they have abundance. Try some grinding poverty and come back and tell me how much you care about what happens in 100 years. Now try some grinding poverty with children. Tell me how much you care about the great Pacific garbage patch after you watch your kids suffer a bit. This is why I think what I call "abstinence based" environmental policies are doomed. I draw a deliberate analogy with right-wing abstinence-based sex-ed, which also fails pretty reliably. Abstinence based environmental policy is any attempt to solve environmental problems by preaching and shaming the poor and middle class into reducing consumption for the sake of some future ideal that might as well be heaven-and-hell as far as they are concerned here and now. The only way we will create a world where we care about the future is to elevate as many people as possible out of poverty. This means we must build systems that create abundance now and try to figure out how to do so as sustainably as possible. If people can't afford the luxury of caring about the future, nothing serious will ever be done about massive problems like climate change.
- simion314 8y ago
  This article and law proposal was not about energy, it is all about cheap plastic, fishing equipment and tires, though I did not understand if they plan to do anything about the car tires. You can have good environmental laws and have the person that pollutes pay and encourage recycling. I am not from US but I don't think the elections were influenced by environmental politics