4 ms·

To paraphrase Johnny Depp: "... but that's called 'communism' and is frowned upon in most societies." Seriously, we have all the tech to radically reduce emiss

To paraphrase Johnny Depp: "... but that's called 'communism' and is frowned upon in most societies." Seriously, we have all the tech to radically reduce emissions starting now. But it costs businesses money to do it, and the future benefit is distributed across all humanity, so nobody does it voluntarily. We need governments to agree to force everyone to do something that benefits society, which stands in stark contrast to market capitalism.

ip26 8y ago
On the other hand, one understanding of the role of government in market capitalist societies would be contract enforcement and ensuring the pricing of externalities
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  Carbon taxes, as well as pricing of externalities, are both means by which a government would force corporations to pay. We have knowledge that it should be done, but yet we are not doing it, as this knowledge is drawn into question by charletans and pharisees who twist and turn scientific cautiousness into doubts and buts and ifs in servitude of the almighty dollar. This is the nature of market capitalist societies: those who own capital seek to protect their income, and won't let minor inconveniences like future environmental crisis stand in their way. Just look at the European carbon tax (ETS); it would have been effective if reasonably priced (50-100 EUR/tonne range), but industry successfully worked to keep the price per tonne at between 1/5th and 1/20th of what would have spurred actual emissions reduction measures, thus it has been toothless. Greenwashing is most all what remains.
adrianN 8y ago
A carbon tax is not in stark contrast to capitalism and would probably help quite a bit with reducing emissions.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  What we have isn't capitalism any more.
mikekchar 8y ago
Putting a price tag on common resources is not communism by any form of definition. If we view things from a feudal perspective, all common resources were held by the crown. You could only get access to things by purchasing or being given a license to it. One of the things we often talk about is the tragedy of the commons. Things without an owner are gobbled up and this is precisely what's happening. Putting a price tag on externalities is about asserting either a state wide, or even world wide ownership on some resource -- whether it be fish stocks, clean air, electromagnetic spectra, etc, etc, etc. This is completely different than a collective/shared ownership by a group of people. Such an idea does not detract in any way from market capitalism. In fact, giving these common resources an owner who can establish a price for their use is exactly what capitalism is all about. We could even go so far as to enact economic fascism by giving ownership of these resources to "elite" companies who will be able to manage them most efficiently (also read as, "giving ownership of these resources to our friends who will be able to maintain their vast wealth and power eternally"). I only mention it since fascism is about as far from communism as you can get (unless, as is often done, you wrap around on the other side of the spectrum ;-) ). The US has a particular view that government ownership should be kept at a minimum. This idea suffers from the problem of either tragedy of the commons (for unregulated common resources and externalities), or with monopolistic ownership of key resources by certain companies (the latter tending towards an economic fascist ideal). I think it's this idea that somebody has to own this stuff and the government is probably the best somebody to own it that's very difficult to swallow for American ideology. But that doesn't mean it can't change.

ip26 8y ago

On the other hand, one understanding of the role of government in market capitalist societies would be contract enforcement and ensuring the pricing of externalities

semi-extrinsic 8y ago
Carbon taxes, as well as pricing of externalities, are both means by which a government would force corporations to pay. We have knowledge that it should be done, but yet we are not doing it, as this knowledge is drawn into question by charletans and pharisees who twist and turn scientific cautiousness into doubts and buts and ifs in servitude of the almighty dollar. This is the nature of market capitalist societies: those who own capital seek to protect their income, and won't let minor inconveniences like future environmental crisis stand in their way. Just look at the European carbon tax (ETS); it would have been effective if reasonably priced (50-100 EUR/tonne range), but industry successfully worked to keep the price per tonne at between 1/5th and 1/20th of what would have spurred actual emissions reduction measures, thus it has been toothless. Greenwashing is most all what remains.

adrianN 8y ago

A carbon tax is not in stark contrast to capitalism and would probably help quite a bit with reducing emissions.

Gibbon1 8y ago
What we have isn't capitalism any more.

mikekchar 8y ago

Putting a price tag on common resources is not communism by any form of definition. If we view things from a feudal perspective, all common resources were held by the crown. You could only get access to things by purchasing or being given a license to it. One of the things we often talk about is the tragedy of the commons. Things without an owner are gobbled up and this is precisely what's happening. Putting a price tag on externalities is about asserting either a state wide, or even world wide ownership on some resource -- whether it be fish stocks, clean air, electromagnetic spectra, etc, etc, etc. This is completely different than a collective/shared ownership by a group of people. Such an idea does not detract in any way from market capitalism. In fact, giving these common resources an owner who can establish a price for their use is exactly what capitalism is all about. We could even go so far as to enact economic fascism by giving ownership of these resources to "elite" companies who will be able to manage them most efficiently (also read as, "giving ownership of these resources to our friends who will be able to maintain their vast wealth and power eternally"). I only mention it since fascism is about as far from communism as you can get (unless, as is often done, you wrap around on the other side of the spectrum ;-) ). The US has a particular view that government ownership should be kept at a minimum. This idea suffers from the problem of either tragedy of the commons (for unregulated common resources and externalities), or with monopolistic ownership of key resources by certain companies (the latter tending towards an economic fascist ideal). I think it's this idea that somebody has to own this stuff and the government is probably the best somebody to own it that's very difficult to swallow for American ideology. But that doesn't mean it can't change.