3 ms·

The fall of the rainforest in 100 years or so is a certainty at this point, as well as the temperature rising over 2 degrees. There is no way that world politi

by vfc1 7y ago

The fall of the rainforest in 100 years or so is a certainty at this point, as well as the temperature rising over 2 degrees. There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. There is no way, it all happens slowly, much slower than the electoral cycle, the politicians in charge are usually seeking personal glory and long mandates, these measures would mean political suicide. 12 years is the time we have to prevent the rise of 2 degrees, its not hapening its as good as done.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. I increasingly view demands for coordination as counterproductive. There will never be full consensus about anything. Meanwhile, if e.g. California imposed a carbon tax on its own, would it destroy them? No, people wouldn't stop living in California just because it became more economical to install solar panels or buy a Nissan Leaf rather than a Toyota. And a market of even that size that went hard for fossil fuel alternatives would both show others that it can be done and create an economic advantage for itself by getting ahead of the curve and causing the companies implementing what must be the future for everyone as businesses inside their jurisdiction. > If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. The answer is to make it revenue neutral and distribute the money as a cash dividend to the population. Then people whinge about the tax and love the credit and it cancels out across the population -- exactly cancels out, because that's what revenue neutral means. But you still get the consumer preference for things that don't destroy the world.

by vfc1 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. I increasingly view demands for coordination as counterproductive. There will never be full consensus about anything. Meanwhile, if e.g. California imposed a carbon tax on its own, would it destroy them? No, people wouldn't stop living in California just because it became more economical to install solar panels or buy a Nissan Leaf rather than a Toyota. And a market of even that size that went hard for fossil fuel alternatives would both show others that it can be done and create an economic advantage for itself by getting ahead of the curve and causing the companies implementing what must be the future for everyone as businesses inside their jurisdiction. > If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. The answer is to make it revenue neutral and distribute the money as a cash dividend to the population. Then people whinge about the tax and love the credit and it cancels out across the population -- exactly cancels out, because that's what revenue neutral means. But you still get the consumer preference for things that don't destroy the world.