3 ms·

Cool. If we had a working tax code, we wouldn't need billionaires' charity and could actually regulate carbon in the atmosphere instead of these sort of band-a

Cool. If we had a working tax code, we wouldn't need billionaires' charity and could actually regulate carbon in the atmosphere instead of these sort of band-aids and PR stunts.

warent 8y ago
Band-aid? Yes, probably. PR Stunt? I highly doubt that. This is way too cynical. Hansjörg Wyss has always been quietly philanthropic. He's old and he's extremely rich. He stands to gain little with a "PR stunt" now. I read this more as a billionaire trying to set an example for other members of the wealthy community.
da02 8y ago
Right, but I doubt Congress would spend that money helping the environment. Look at what they spend money on right now: * $1,280 per coffee cup: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/air-force-spends-over-300-000-metal-coffee-mugs-raising-questions/1729890002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/ai... * $1.2 trillion to “modernize” the US nuclear arsenal and production facilities: https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/ https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-th... * $38 billion in "defense aid" to a foreign country: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us-congress-votes-defense-aid-israel-law-20180926-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us...
- adventured 8y ago
  The US nuclear arsenal should be modernized and maintained. China and Russia have no plans to stand still as it pertains to their weapons. It would be remarkably foolish for the US to not properly maintain its nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the most cost effective means that exist to deter large-scale wars between major military powers. $40 billion per year for 30 years would be an amazing bargain to help to continue to maintain peace between the US, China, Russia, UK, France, India, etc. Outside of the fantasy scenario where everyone simultaneously gets rid of their nukes and nobody else ever develops them.
  - throwaway2016a 8y ago
    Suppose we agree. In fact, I think I can agree with that... Why is it $40 billion a year? I'm not a Musk fan per say but it is the closest analog... you can buy almost 2 SpaceX's (the entire company) a year for that and I highly doubt modernizing the nuclear infrastructure is that much more complicated than R&D on a brand new space company. Some of us don't necessarily disagree we need to spend money on defense. But we think the amount being spent is way more than should be reasonably necessary to get the job done. People like to criticize people who want to cut military budgets never asking if maybe we should just fire a bunch of people at the top who are inflating all the costs and replace them with people incentivized to get us more for less money.
    - mawburn 8y ago
      Because if you don't spend all your budget, you won't get more next year. How are you going to spend all your budget if you're paying fair price for things? This is a totally reasonable way to run government budgets and not insane at all! /s
qaq 8y ago
And how would that tax code work? the super rich generally own stock often of their own company are you proposing to tax holding stocks?
threeseed 8y ago
It really shows the hypocrisy of the business community and pro-business politicians around the world. You have a solution for climate change which is a price on carbon i.e. a pure market driven mechanism. But in this case they universally hate it and instead prefer the government hand out subsidies and bonuses.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  The problem isn't the business community in general so much as specific businesses. In Washington State we're voting on an initiative to put a price on emissions. It's supported by Microsoft, REI, Ben and Jerry's, and a bunch of smaller businesses and business alliances. Its business opposition is one generic business organization (Association of Washington Business) plus the Western States Petroleum Association. The problem is "concentrated pain, diffuse benefits." Putting a price on emissions is an existential threat to businesses based on fossil fuel extraction or combustion. It's a nice-to-have for businesses that provide alternatives to fossil energy, like solar installers. For most other businesses it's not a key issue either way. This is similar to how most American businesses would be happy-to-indifferent about the existence of municipal broadband services, but private providers of broadband services fiercely oppose that option. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...
- roenxi 8y ago
  I'm on board with the idea that of all the ways to implement an anti-carbon system a trading system would be the best. It creates a real market. But calling businesses hypocrites is being unfair - there is already a hypothetical market for carbon emissions where the price is $0. The government is going to drive the price up to something high enough that it will change business behavior, by extension causing businesses losses. They aren't doing anything unreasonable, government steps in, value disappears. They're being completely reasonable by venting and asking for some sort of compensation. Asking for that compensation in the form of a subsidy is selfish, but once the government gets involved all bets are off, so why not aim for the stars and see what they can wrangle?
black_13 8y ago
Basically

Cool. If we had a working tax code, we wouldn't need billionaires' charity and could actually regulate carbon in the atmosphere instead of these sort of band-aids and PR stunts.

warent 8y ago

Band-aid? Yes, probably. PR Stunt? I highly doubt that. This is way too cynical. Hansjörg Wyss has always been quietly philanthropic. He's old and he's extremely rich. He stands to gain little with a "PR stunt" now. I read this more as a billionaire trying to set an example for other members of the wealthy community.

da02 8y ago

Right, but I doubt Congress would spend that money helping the environment. Look at what they spend money on right now: * $1,280 per coffee cup: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/air-force-spends-over-300-000-metal-coffee-mugs-raising-questions/1729890002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/ai... * $1.2 trillion to “modernize” the US nuclear arsenal and production facilities: https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/ https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-th... * $38 billion in "defense aid" to a foreign country: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us-congress-votes-defense-aid-israel-law-20180926-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us...

adventured 8y ago
The US nuclear arsenal should be modernized and maintained. China and Russia have no plans to stand still as it pertains to their weapons. It would be remarkably foolish for the US to not properly maintain its nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the most cost effective means that exist to deter large-scale wars between major military powers. $40 billion per year for 30 years would be an amazing bargain to help to continue to maintain peace between the US, China, Russia, UK, France, India, etc. Outside of the fantasy scenario where everyone simultaneously gets rid of their nukes and nobody else ever develops them.
- throwaway2016a 8y ago
  Suppose we agree. In fact, I think I can agree with that... Why is it $40 billion a year? I'm not a Musk fan per say but it is the closest analog... you can buy almost 2 SpaceX's (the entire company) a year for that and I highly doubt modernizing the nuclear infrastructure is that much more complicated than R&D on a brand new space company. Some of us don't necessarily disagree we need to spend money on defense. But we think the amount being spent is way more than should be reasonably necessary to get the job done. People like to criticize people who want to cut military budgets never asking if maybe we should just fire a bunch of people at the top who are inflating all the costs and replace them with people incentivized to get us more for less money.
  - mawburn 8y ago
    Because if you don't spend all your budget, you won't get more next year. How are you going to spend all your budget if you're paying fair price for things? This is a totally reasonable way to run government budgets and not insane at all! /s

qaq 8y ago

And how would that tax code work? the super rich generally own stock often of their own company are you proposing to tax holding stocks?

threeseed 8y ago

It really shows the hypocrisy of the business community and pro-business politicians around the world. You have a solution for climate change which is a price on carbon i.e. a pure market driven mechanism. But in this case they universally hate it and instead prefer the government hand out subsidies and bonuses.

philipkglass 8y ago
The problem isn't the business community in general so much as specific businesses. In Washington State we're voting on an initiative to put a price on emissions. It's supported by Microsoft, REI, Ben and Jerry's, and a bunch of smaller businesses and business alliances. Its business opposition is one generic business organization (Association of Washington Business) plus the Western States Petroleum Association. The problem is "concentrated pain, diffuse benefits." Putting a price on emissions is an existential threat to businesses based on fossil fuel extraction or combustion. It's a nice-to-have for businesses that provide alternatives to fossil energy, like solar installers. For most other businesses it's not a key issue either way. This is similar to how most American businesses would be happy-to-indifferent about the existence of municipal broadband services, but private providers of broadband services fiercely oppose that option. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...
roenxi 8y ago
I'm on board with the idea that of all the ways to implement an anti-carbon system a trading system would be the best. It creates a real market. But calling businesses hypocrites is being unfair - there is already a hypothetical market for carbon emissions where the price is $0. The government is going to drive the price up to something high enough that it will change business behavior, by extension causing businesses losses. They aren't doing anything unreasonable, government steps in, value disappears. They're being completely reasonable by venting and asking for some sort of compensation. Asking for that compensation in the form of a subsidy is selfish, but once the government gets involved all bets are off, so why not aim for the stars and see what they can wrangle?

black_13 8y ago

Basically