4 ms·

Do all methods of curtailing CO2 emissions lower people's quality of life?

intended 8y ago
Yes or they don’t work. I’ve spent way to much time as lay man trying to penetrate Econ speak to get the issue, but the crux seems to be this: Currently markets and goods don’t price the cost of economic damage into products. So plastics are cheap as hell because they don’t reflect clean up costs. This means we have plastic straws which are so cheap on a per unit basis, that you can sell 100s in a single bundle. Saran Wrap, packaging plastic, tooth brushes, phones, pens, toothpicks, mugs, wires, buttons, and billions of other items are extremely cheap. Now imagine if ALL of them went up by a small amount. Then recall, that for the developing world the difference between a 0.01 cent plastic cost and 0.05, is an increase in packaging cost for cheap goods like single use detergent sachets, or single use shampoo packets. Of course, this will directly reduce usage of those goods, which is the intended purpose, but the fact is that those goods being cheap means people can grow faster without worrying about the issues which arise. Carbon curtailment is fundamentally energy consumptive. We will spend more energy to capture carbon. We would have to create a system which is carbon negative in itself (after power and maintenance costs are calculated), and then pay for the whole thing, Taxing goods to price externalities is probably the most efficient way to achieve it.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  So if I buy a car that has much better gas mileage, my quality of life is lowered? If I buy a product that has less packaging, so there's less waste, my quality of life is lowered? If I take up bicycling, and as a result drive less, is my quality of life lowered? If the hotel I stay at starts using containers of soap instead of single-use packets, is my quality of life lowered?
  - AtlasBarfed 8y ago
    1) a car that truly gets fantastic gas mileage is small and aerodynamic to the point it loses many practical features of a traditional car 2) If the packaging results in greater spoilage, reduces stimulated demand, or is more expensive to produce than cheap plastic 3) more time to do things, less ability to transport equipment and goods 4) you're being moronic at this point
  - intended 8y ago
    Those are all options and choices for a small fraction of humans at what is effectively the top of the pyramid. In each case, those are choices made out of ZERO economic pressure. You can do that TODAY, without the need of us discussing carbon capture costs. However, most people DOMT exercise that choice, either through necessity or preference. For all of those people, an increase in oil prices mean that they have to choose between working and living in an affordable place. It means more Money out of the monthly budget which is not available for other things. This is economically defined as a reduction in their quality of life. Do consider that, For most of humanity, food, water, medicine, clothes are decisions separated by razor sharp margins. Owning a car is a distant dream. Simply - If the cost of everything went up, and you thus has less disposable income to use, then your quality of life by definition has dropped.
smolder 8y ago
Only based on the idea of QoL that comes from economics, where it's measured by money exchanged. That's the less important definition, IMO, just a poor approximation of real QoL.

Yes or they don’t work. I’ve spent way to much time as lay man trying to penetrate Econ speak to get the issue, but the crux seems to be this: Currently markets and goods don’t price the cost of economic damage into products. So plastics are cheap as hell because they don’t reflect clean up costs. This means we have plastic straws which are so cheap on a per unit basis, that you can sell 100s in a single bundle. Saran Wrap, packaging plastic, tooth brushes, phones, pens, toothpicks, mugs, wires, buttons, and billions of other items are extremely cheap. Now imagine if ALL of them went up by a small amount. Then recall, that for the developing world the difference between a 0.01 cent plastic cost and 0.05, is an increase in packaging cost for cheap goods like single use detergent sachets, or single use shampoo packets. Of course, this will directly reduce usage of those goods, which is the intended purpose, but the fact is that those goods being cheap means people can grow faster without worrying about the issues which arise. Carbon curtailment is fundamentally energy consumptive. We will spend more energy to capture carbon. We would have to create a system which is carbon negative in itself (after power and maintenance costs are calculated), and then pay for the whole thing, Taxing goods to price externalities is probably the most efficient way to achieve it.

greglindahl 8y ago
So if I buy a car that has much better gas mileage, my quality of life is lowered? If I buy a product that has less packaging, so there's less waste, my quality of life is lowered? If I take up bicycling, and as a result drive less, is my quality of life lowered? If the hotel I stay at starts using containers of soap instead of single-use packets, is my quality of life lowered?
- AtlasBarfed 8y ago
  1) a car that truly gets fantastic gas mileage is small and aerodynamic to the point it loses many practical features of a traditional car 2) If the packaging results in greater spoilage, reduces stimulated demand, or is more expensive to produce than cheap plastic 3) more time to do things, less ability to transport equipment and goods 4) you're being moronic at this point
- intended 8y ago
  Those are all options and choices for a small fraction of humans at what is effectively the top of the pyramid. In each case, those are choices made out of ZERO economic pressure. You can do that TODAY, without the need of us discussing carbon capture costs. However, most people DOMT exercise that choice, either through necessity or preference. For all of those people, an increase in oil prices mean that they have to choose between working and living in an affordable place. It means more Money out of the monthly budget which is not available for other things. This is economically defined as a reduction in their quality of life. Do consider that, For most of humanity, food, water, medicine, clothes are decisions separated by razor sharp margins. Owning a car is a distant dream. Simply - If the cost of everything went up, and you thus has less disposable income to use, then your quality of life by definition has dropped.

smolder 8y ago

Only based on the idea of QoL that comes from economics, where it's measured by money exchanged. That's the less important definition, IMO, just a poor approximation of real QoL.