4 ms·
There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable
by MR4D 7y ago
There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help.
Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks)
1 - price of electricity would go up (due to fuel costs)
2 - price of concrete would go up (due to both carbon usage and energy usage)
3 - price of steel would go up (probably way up due to the energy Use)
4 - price of plastic would go up (because of higher material cost)
Other third-order effects would happen too:
5 - price of food would go up (because of higher fuel and material cost)
6 - housing costs would rise (due to energy costs and things like PVC which make up huge portions of any modern plumbing system)
7 - inflation would rise (due to energy, food, and materials price increases)
And it just gets worse, hitting those on a budget or low income especially hard.
Again, the ideas may be laudable, but changes like this take decades - like 5+ decades, not just one or two.
- alexandercrohde 7y agoI think you have this all wrong. Those prices going up is necessary and good. It creates a huge market pressure against all activities (including stuff like food sources) that produce a lot of carbon. If it damages our atmosphere to create a steel, then that factor NEEDS to be accounted for and COMPENSATED for at steel creation. Fortunately, in addition to driving down the appeal of high-pollution foods/materials, it'll also stimulate the market for green solutions by pumping huge financial incentives in. Does this mean life is harder for the poor? Yes. That's why proposal like this or green-new-deal often have a plan for that too.
- mikeash 7y agoWe are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.
- MR4D 7y agoI agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoWe don’t have the time. Anyway the response to WW2 shows we can adjust quickly to change.
- MR4D 7y agoDo you mean 20+ million dead and total destruction of several countries? Saying we “adjusted” after that is disingenuous to say the least.
- mikeash 7y agoI imagine they’re referring to the complete retooling of the US economy for war production.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoI think your interpretation of what I said is disingenuous.
- megaremote 7y agoSo everything would go up, but then people would have more money. Or are you suggesting that the extra money gets burnt in a furnace? Have the carbon tax go to the people. Easy solution. Prices go up, people get more money.
- MR4D 7y ago> Easy solution. Prices go up, people get more money. Uh,it doesn’t work that way. If it did, Zimbabwe would rule the planet with their hyperinflation that your line of thinking created for them. The missing piece - the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Look in your wallet - where is that going to come from? I know in my wallet, I’m going to have to cut back on something - probably eating out. So now the restaurants near my house are going to have less business. Some of them will probably cut back on the hours of the waiters, or even let them go. Unemployment goes up. Etc. These things have to be done over longer time horizons. People do not adapt well to dramatic short-term changes. If they did, then 2008 would have been just another year, instead of tagged with “global financial crisis”.