5 ms·

The big polluters, like airlines, energy, transportation, and chemical companies are the ones that will have to take these steps to see any effect. Every bit he

The big polluters, like airlines, energy, transportation, and chemical companies are the ones that will have to take these steps to see any effect. Every bit helps, of course, but the cost of implementing something like this is doable for some, while for many would mean extinction, or fundamental changes to their business model.

henryfjordan 7y ago
I get where you are coming from, but should we really tolerate fundamental changes to our planet over fundamental changes to a business model?
taurath 7y ago
I think it’s on all of us, including all the corporations. We should have a carbon tax to disincentivize mass c02 production - at the moment all the profits are private and all the losses (to the environment) are public. If they want to pay someone who’s planting trees for carbon caps then that’s fine for me. Just solve the damn problem. Who’s standing in the way? Shareholders of the above companies (and by proxy, the lobbyists and politicians). Because protective action doesn’t get them gains. It requires government action.
- gbrown 7y ago
  It's literally economics 101: externalities, but for some crazy reason in the US it's seen as a leftist anti-capitalist issue.
  - nightski 7y ago
    Because you are acting like this would punish the company. It might to an extent but in reality consumers would hurt the most. That in my opinion is why it doesn't happen.
    - omosubi 7y ago
      The tyranny of the majority :/
    - jeromegv 7y ago
      Not as much when the carbon tax is tax-neutral. In Canada we started getting back a carbon tax credit. Consumer impact is still there but a lot more mitigated.
    - ako 7y ago
      It’s meant to ‘punish’ consumers: it needs to be painful enough that consumers reduce their consumption, otherwise pollution will not be reduced.
      - nightski 7y ago
        Right but it's not going to punish consumers equally. It will hurt the poor a lot more than the rich imho. Essentially a regressive tax moving the burden for the climate change problem to the poor.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Because reducing US emissions to 0 will have no effect on global warming.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Reducing emissions by 14% will have no impact? I doubt that very much. And that's just direct emissions; the emissions of other countries can often be attributed to supplying to the US.
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  It is difficult to get people to agree if it means gas and cheeseburgers cost twice as much.
nextos 7y ago
I think we need to implement world-wide tax on pollution to avoid some crazy externalitiees. For example, cheap flights used frequently are a ridiculous luxury we cannot afford. I know lots of people that use budget airlines more than once per month to make weekend trips across Europe. The amount of CO2 they are putting into the atmosphere is simply insane. A bit more than doing the same trip by car, for each passenger.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  A carbon tax is well known to be the rational solution to the problem. Even conservatives agree. It just happens to be politically impossible.
  - Areading314 7y ago
    People pretend it's hard to create a carbon tax, but it's really not. Just tax the fuel (gas/oil/coal), and the cost will be passed on to polluters. Edit, of course, politically yes it's hard.
    - aaaaaar 7y ago
      Does it have to be? Planet Money had an episode about "revenue-neutral carbon tax", where all the money collected is returned back to the tax payers, to spend however they want. The point of this tax is not to raise money, but to change behavior. This, a family that drives to work and school every day will pay more carbon tax, but this will be offset by the tax refund (or lower income tax). And a family that finds ways to reduce their carbon footprint will benefit from the tax refund and able to spend it on other things. WA state had a carbon tax initiative but the revenues went to environmental efforts, and it failed. I think if it were made revenue-neutral, or heck, even made as an overall tax-cut to please the fiscal conservatives, I think it would pass (although it would face pushback from environmentally minded about not doing enough).
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        Here is the Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ I like it a lot, but the problem is the major industries that will be heavily impacted/closed down as a result. They have immense political power, and I don't see any way around that. Hope I'm wrong. And that's of course just one country out of 200. There is no local solution to global warming!
chrdlu 7y ago
Individuals matter too! Netflix made had $5.8B in revenue from small $10-20 subscription users! Today, for $20 a month you can offset your own carbon footprint! This matters because the more resources that goes into fighting climate change allows innovation. Even by generating more demand for carbon credits and offsetting, new businesses can thrive and grow by fighting climate change! I've been super obsessed with https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com (YC S19) for these exact reason!
- esotericn 7y ago
  Way less than $20 a month in a lot of the world too. Americans have a footprint twice as high as Brits, even.
  - SpeakMouthWords 7y ago
    Cars and air-con are the main offenders there, right?
    - Areading314 7y ago
      And air travel
- glogla 7y ago
  I like it, but why do I have to give my email for emission calculation? It's off-putting, I don't want even more spam. And I will tell them where do I live and how, will they package it with my email and sell it to ad companies as a handy profile? Sorry to be paranoid, but most startups (uber, airbnb, paypal, not to mention facebook ...) are evil and exploitative.
  - mtranzambetti 7y ago
    Wren co-founder here — we ask for your email so we can send you a report on your footprint (if you choose) or come back to the onboarding flow later. We're spinning the calculator out into an open resource soon though! Finally, we just started two months ago and have not sold user information to ad companies nor do we ever plan to. That sounds like an evil and unnecessary way to go about not accomplishing our mission.

henryfjordan 7y ago

I get where you are coming from, but should we really tolerate fundamental changes to our planet over fundamental changes to a business model?

taurath 7y ago

I think it’s on all of us, including all the corporations. We should have a carbon tax to disincentivize mass c02 production - at the moment all the profits are private and all the losses (to the environment) are public. If they want to pay someone who’s planting trees for carbon caps then that’s fine for me. Just solve the damn problem. Who’s standing in the way? Shareholders of the above companies (and by proxy, the lobbyists and politicians). Because protective action doesn’t get them gains. It requires government action.

gbrown 7y ago
It's literally economics 101: externalities, but for some crazy reason in the US it's seen as a leftist anti-capitalist issue.
- nightski 7y ago
  Because you are acting like this would punish the company. It might to an extent but in reality consumers would hurt the most. That in my opinion is why it doesn't happen.
  - omosubi 7y ago
    The tyranny of the majority :/
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    Not as much when the carbon tax is tax-neutral. In Canada we started getting back a carbon tax credit. Consumer impact is still there but a lot more mitigated.
  - ako 7y ago
    It’s meant to ‘punish’ consumers: it needs to be painful enough that consumers reduce their consumption, otherwise pollution will not be reduced.
    - nightski 7y ago
      Right but it's not going to punish consumers equally. It will hurt the poor a lot more than the rich imho. Essentially a regressive tax moving the burden for the climate change problem to the poor.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Because reducing US emissions to 0 will have no effect on global warming.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Reducing emissions by 14% will have no impact? I doubt that very much. And that's just direct emissions; the emissions of other countries can often be attributed to supplying to the US.
gnopgnip 7y ago
It is difficult to get people to agree if it means gas and cheeseburgers cost twice as much.

nextos 7y ago

I think we need to implement world-wide tax on pollution to avoid some crazy externalitiees. For example, cheap flights used frequently are a ridiculous luxury we cannot afford. I know lots of people that use budget airlines more than once per month to make weekend trips across Europe. The amount of CO2 they are putting into the atmosphere is simply insane. A bit more than doing the same trip by car, for each passenger.

BurningFrog 7y ago
A carbon tax is well known to be the rational solution to the problem. Even conservatives agree. It just happens to be politically impossible.
- Areading314 7y ago
  People pretend it's hard to create a carbon tax, but it's really not. Just tax the fuel (gas/oil/coal), and the cost will be passed on to polluters. Edit, of course, politically yes it's hard.
  - aaaaaar 7y ago
    Does it have to be? Planet Money had an episode about "revenue-neutral carbon tax", where all the money collected is returned back to the tax payers, to spend however they want. The point of this tax is not to raise money, but to change behavior. This, a family that drives to work and school every day will pay more carbon tax, but this will be offset by the tax refund (or lower income tax). And a family that finds ways to reduce their carbon footprint will benefit from the tax refund and able to spend it on other things. WA state had a carbon tax initiative but the revenues went to environmental efforts, and it failed. I think if it were made revenue-neutral, or heck, even made as an overall tax-cut to please the fiscal conservatives, I think it would pass (although it would face pushback from environmentally minded about not doing enough).
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      Here is the Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ I like it a lot, but the problem is the major industries that will be heavily impacted/closed down as a result. They have immense political power, and I don't see any way around that. Hope I'm wrong. And that's of course just one country out of 200. There is no local solution to global warming!

chrdlu 7y ago

Individuals matter too! Netflix made had $5.8B in revenue from small $10-20 subscription users! Today, for $20 a month you can offset your own carbon footprint! This matters because the more resources that goes into fighting climate change allows innovation. Even by generating more demand for carbon credits and offsetting, new businesses can thrive and grow by fighting climate change! I've been super obsessed with https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com (YC S19) for these exact reason!

esotericn 7y ago
Way less than $20 a month in a lot of the world too. Americans have a footprint twice as high as Brits, even.
- SpeakMouthWords 7y ago
  Cars and air-con are the main offenders there, right?
  - Areading314 7y ago
    And air travel
glogla 7y ago
I like it, but why do I have to give my email for emission calculation? It's off-putting, I don't want even more spam. And I will tell them where do I live and how, will they package it with my email and sell it to ad companies as a handy profile? Sorry to be paranoid, but most startups (uber, airbnb, paypal, not to mention facebook ...) are evil and exploitative.
- mtranzambetti 7y ago
  Wren co-founder here — we ask for your email so we can send you a report on your footprint (if you choose) or come back to the onboarding flow later. We're spinning the calculator out into an open resource soon though! Finally, we just started two months ago and have not sold user information to ad companies nor do we ever plan to. That sounds like an evil and unnecessary way to go about not accomplishing our mission.