4 ms·

What we need is coordinated action to take the fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters down, make them feel the full burden of their respo

What we need is coordinated action to take the fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters down, make them feel the full burden of their responsibility, and it needs to be decisive and without compromise. They have been allowed to poison the world for far too long. As an ordinary person, what you need to do is shift your priority to vote almost exclusively based on environmental policies of the candidate, get involved in politics and not give in to people who claim it's "no big deal". I think this is a commendable initiative from Piketty et. al., which actually has a chance of being supported by a large number of people. Personally I don't think it's nearly hard-hitting enough, but it's a good start.

Pamar 8y ago
I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said device to reach your home or office entirely by muscle or wind powered vehicles are pretty near 0. In other words, while I am sure that "fossil fuel industry" was never motivated by purely altruistic ideas, we have also to take in account that the standard of living we take for granted is in large part due to "fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters".
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.
  - Pamar 8y ago
    I wasn't trying to paint you as an hypocrite, I have my own "ideals" and I am painfully aware that I have also constantly to make pragmatic choices about these (specifically: I am an ethical vegetarian) - it was just that the original message sounded too much like a rant: especially invoking a pogrom against fuel manufacturers didn't seem to offer any real improvement to the situation of, well, anybody.
pas 8y ago
Thousands of people went to the street in Paris because of a fossil fuel tax hike. Even if the timing was very stupid (mixing it with a tax cut for very high income individuals to entice them to relocate to Paris from London post-Brexit, even if in the end that tax cut pays for itself), the French gov. tried to do the "right" thing, and it completely failed to communicate this. (As far as I know.)
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  The fuel tax was only a very small part of why the protests started. The biggest reason was the tax cuts (which will not pay for themselves, that's nonsense like all trickle-down theory) and the complete slashing of public transit and transportation alternatives for people outside of Paris, Marseille etc. Thanks to tax cuts and reforms, the people living in small towns and rural areas have literally no alternative, they have to use a car. So by trying to greenwash corrupt policies with a at-the-pump fuel tax, the French government would in effect be forcing a highly regressive tax on ordinary people, who are already struggling to make ends meet, while completely neglecting to deal with the highly polluting fossil fuel and transportation businesses.
  - pas 8y ago
    > that's nonsense like all trickle-down theory It's not trickle down theory. Paris overtook London as the city with most high-net-worth individuals. Thus a lot of people are not paying taxes in Paris as opposed to London. Though, of course, it depends how much money they end up actually paying compared to the lost revenue. But this is the one point that I can accept. The others are unacceptable, we are in agreement about them.
hackeraccount 8y ago
How exactly do you think that would work? Do you think that if you put a giant tax on the fossil fuel industry everyone working in it would throw up their collective hands and take a pay cut? With the executives taking the lion's share because it's only fair? Personally I think they would just pass the price along. We'd then be back to protests in the streets of France because none of those people are idiots. Plus the idea that raising the price of energy won't have knock on effects on the rest of the economy seems doubtful.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  By pricing in the true environmental and societal impact into fossil fuel products, consumption would move to greener alternatives. In the long run, the solution is to completely rattle the very foundations of capitalism, but the world is not quite ready yet.

Pamar 8y ago

I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said device to reach your home or office entirely by muscle or wind powered vehicles are pretty near 0. In other words, while I am sure that "fossil fuel industry" was never motivated by purely altruistic ideas, we have also to take in account that the standard of living we take for granted is in large part due to "fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters".

KozmoNau7 8y ago
Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.
- Pamar 8y ago
  I wasn't trying to paint you as an hypocrite, I have my own "ideals" and I am painfully aware that I have also constantly to make pragmatic choices about these (specifically: I am an ethical vegetarian) - it was just that the original message sounded too much like a rant: especially invoking a pogrom against fuel manufacturers didn't seem to offer any real improvement to the situation of, well, anybody.

pas 8y ago

Thousands of people went to the street in Paris because of a fossil fuel tax hike. Even if the timing was very stupid (mixing it with a tax cut for very high income individuals to entice them to relocate to Paris from London post-Brexit, even if in the end that tax cut pays for itself), the French gov. tried to do the "right" thing, and it completely failed to communicate this. (As far as I know.)

KozmoNau7 8y ago
The fuel tax was only a very small part of why the protests started. The biggest reason was the tax cuts (which will not pay for themselves, that's nonsense like all trickle-down theory) and the complete slashing of public transit and transportation alternatives for people outside of Paris, Marseille etc. Thanks to tax cuts and reforms, the people living in small towns and rural areas have literally no alternative, they have to use a car. So by trying to greenwash corrupt policies with a at-the-pump fuel tax, the French government would in effect be forcing a highly regressive tax on ordinary people, who are already struggling to make ends meet, while completely neglecting to deal with the highly polluting fossil fuel and transportation businesses.
- pas 8y ago
  > that's nonsense like all trickle-down theory It's not trickle down theory. Paris overtook London as the city with most high-net-worth individuals. Thus a lot of people are not paying taxes in Paris as opposed to London. Though, of course, it depends how much money they end up actually paying compared to the lost revenue. But this is the one point that I can accept. The others are unacceptable, we are in agreement about them.

hackeraccount 8y ago

How exactly do you think that would work? Do you think that if you put a giant tax on the fossil fuel industry everyone working in it would throw up their collective hands and take a pay cut? With the executives taking the lion's share because it's only fair? Personally I think they would just pass the price along. We'd then be back to protests in the streets of France because none of those people are idiots. Plus the idea that raising the price of energy won't have knock on effects on the rest of the economy seems doubtful.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
By pricing in the true environmental and societal impact into fossil fuel products, consumption would move to greener alternatives. In the long run, the solution is to completely rattle the very foundations of capitalism, but the world is not quite ready yet.