5 ms·

"The world is going to hell, almost literally" "We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" Which pretty much sums up why we are here.

by rinze 8y ago

chrischen 8y ago
Well if you can give up your job, say no to money, then we wouldn’t be here.
mikeash 8y ago
It does, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
PeterisP 8y ago
"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" is just other words for "To achieve X, we need to figure out (and implement) an incentive structure so that people would benefit from doing stuff that facilitates X, which is pretty much the only way to get them to do it".
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's what I was trying to say. So how do people benefit now from preventing likely future disaster?
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    Right now they don't, but the major governments can set up incentives so that e.g. carbon sequestration would/could become a profitable industry.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      I get that. And I was hoping for something purely economic. But maybe that's impossible. Which is why governments.
    - intended 8y ago
      No they cant. After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems. Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected. This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted. The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.
      - balt_s 8y ago
        Put this on our species' eventual planetary gravestone -- as a warning to others.
smsm42 8y ago
Think about it this way: how you make somebody to do something? There's only two sure ways to achieve it - make them afraid not to do it or make them rewarded for doing it. What would you prefer - people getting executed for going over their carbon quota or somebody making money from carbon sequestration? What you would prefer to happen to you? I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution.
- flukus 8y ago
  > I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution. A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope. Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-67-year-low-trumps-america-rest-world-rises https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-... US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
    - flukus 8y ago
      > Proven to do what? Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol. > Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall. > US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens. According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut. Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?

"The world is going to hell, almost literally" "We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" Which pretty much sums up why we are here.

by rinze 8y ago

"The world is going to hell, almost literally" "We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" Which pretty much sums up why we are here.

chrischen 8y ago

Well if you can give up your job, say no to money, then we wouldn’t be here.

mikeash 8y ago

It does, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

PeterisP 8y ago

"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" is just other words for "To achieve X, we need to figure out (and implement) an incentive structure so that people would benefit from doing stuff that facilitates X, which is pretty much the only way to get them to do it".

mirimir 8y ago
That's what I was trying to say. So how do people benefit now from preventing likely future disaster?
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Right now they don't, but the major governments can set up incentives so that e.g. carbon sequestration would/could become a profitable industry.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I get that. And I was hoping for something purely economic. But maybe that's impossible. Which is why governments.
  - intended 8y ago
    No they cant. After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems. Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected. This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted. The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.
    - balt_s 8y ago
      Put this on our species' eventual planetary gravestone -- as a warning to others.

smsm42 8y ago

Think about it this way: how you make somebody to do something? There's only two sure ways to achieve it - make them afraid not to do it or make them rewarded for doing it. What would you prefer - people getting executed for going over their carbon quota or somebody making money from carbon sequestration? What you would prefer to happen to you? I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution.

flukus 8y ago
> I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution. A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope. Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-67-year-low-trumps-america-rest-world-rises https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-... US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
  - flukus 8y ago
    > Proven to do what? Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol. > Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall. > US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens. According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut. Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?