3 ms·

I don’t understand. Why would central planning be required to fix climate change? How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer exte

by baddox 7y ago

I don’t understand. Why would central planning be required to fix climate change? How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer externalities? I don’t see any reason to turn to central planning, unless one just uses that term to refer to any regulations involving the economy.

Dirlewanger 7y ago
It may unfortunately be the only way. We live in a capitalist society where the only reason any sort of enterprise occurs is because there's a profit to be made. The US government just doesn't give a shit to correct negative externalities via smart regulation because it's in bed with all the big actors in most industries.
- baddox 7y ago
  I don’t quite understand the argument. Since the US government is in bed with big industry, it should take over the entire economy instead of regulate those big industries?
umadon 7y ago
I don't see the US government (for one) having the teeth or even really desire to enforce any regulations absent a huge change.
magnamerc 7y ago
I think a lot of right wingers in North America would say that regulations such as taxing carbon, or providing government incentives to solar or wind farms would be considered a socialist centrally planned catastrophe. I mean, that's what the 'Green New Deal' is all about, and apparently American right wing nuts think that's communism.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  The Green New Deal is a mishmash of left wing talking points, not a coherent proposal.
24gttghh 7y ago
>How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer externalities? There will still be externalities, but they would be properly priced in and accountable.
davidwitt415 7y ago
One example when I was there in March: I saw no 2-stroke ICE scooters, everybody is riding electric scooters. AFAIK, it was a decree by the central govt, and a very effective change since 2-strokes are notorious polluters.

by baddox 7y ago

Dirlewanger 7y ago

It may unfortunately be the only way. We live in a capitalist society where the only reason any sort of enterprise occurs is because there's a profit to be made. The US government just doesn't give a shit to correct negative externalities via smart regulation because it's in bed with all the big actors in most industries.

baddox 7y ago
I don’t quite understand the argument. Since the US government is in bed with big industry, it should take over the entire economy instead of regulate those big industries?

umadon 7y ago

I don't see the US government (for one) having the teeth or even really desire to enforce any regulations absent a huge change.

magnamerc 7y ago

I think a lot of right wingers in North America would say that regulations such as taxing carbon, or providing government incentives to solar or wind farms would be considered a socialist centrally planned catastrophe. I mean, that's what the 'Green New Deal' is all about, and apparently American right wing nuts think that's communism.

jolfdb 7y ago
The Green New Deal is a mishmash of left wing talking points, not a coherent proposal.

24gttghh 7y ago

>How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer externalities? There will still be externalities, but they would be properly priced in and accountable.

davidwitt415 7y ago

One example when I was there in March: I saw no 2-stroke ICE scooters, everybody is riding electric scooters. AFAIK, it was a decree by the central govt, and a very effective change since 2-strokes are notorious polluters.