3 ms·

> However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categorie

> However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change would require abandoning capitalism. The goal shouldn't be to totally halt all pollution, the goal should be to switch to a carbon-neutral global economy, and find some way to sequester carbon on a large scale. Doing that would require a massive shift in power generation to wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power. All vehicles would have to switch to electric or fuel cell. All of that would be enormously expensive, but it could still create many new jobs. Manufacturing would have to change dramatically and carbon scrubbers would have to be employed to counteract carbon emissions from industry. Shipping and trade would have to undergo radical transformation. The cost of many goods would rise substantially You'd still have some air pollution, trash, water pollution, etc. But again, the goal would be to cut greenhouse emissions. Either way the costs of not making the shift are incalculable. The civilization as we know will end if we stay on this path.

pluma 7y ago
The problem is that we're well past the point where "carbon-neutral" is good enough. We not only need to stop causing additional harm, we need to figure out ways to undo at least some of the harm we've already done. Given the limited time frame, there's simply not enough time left to "upgrade" all production to be carbon-negative (or at least carbon-neutral). Even if we could magically swap out all factories and infrastructure, we would still be overproducing and depleting scarce resources. Plus of course thermodynamics are working against us: burning oil is easy. Extracting carbon from the air and refining it to create a usable resource on the other hand is extremely difficult and energy intensive. Trying to ramp up recycling instead of harvesting raw materials would create a massive additional need for energy, meaning we would not only have to shift to renewables but also do so while ramping up the energy production. Plus of course nuclear power still requires mining for raw materials and building the batteries needed to store all the variable power from wind, solar etc would require even more (and rarer) raw materials. Basically we're talking a massive overhaul with very little financial benefit (and often quite the opposite) to those owning "the means of production". The costs of not doing it may be incalculable but the costs of doing it are far more direct and immediate. Capitalism doesn't optimise for long-term cost reduction. An individual capitalist may prefer long-term survival over short-term profits but the economic system as a whole doesn't work that way and an individual "taking the risk" of investing will be punished (i.e. lose market share, go bankrupt or be bought out) if the market outperforms them in the meantime. That's why I'm saying the problem is capitalism: it's not some Marxist-Leninist navel-gazing. The very way capitalism works makes it impossible for those with the power to do so (i.e. "the market") to do anything about climate change. It's one big prisoner's dilemma. The only way to win this would be either for a significant majority of wealthy people to cooperate and invest everything they have, or for a single individual to control the majority of the market and force the decision (which of course doesn't work if more than one person does this) -- guess which strategy is more appealing.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  > The problem is that we're well past the point where "carbon-neutral" is good enough. We not only need to stop causing additional harm, we need to figure out ways to undo at least some of the harm we've already done. Agreed. I think we're already well into a new phase in humanity where geo-engineering on a massive scale is going to be needed if we don't want to slip back into the dark ages, or worse. Unfortunately there may not be any practical solutions available to us. I agree with a lot of what you said, I don't the markets can solve the problem. It will take wide scale government intervention. Maybe that means capitalism as we know must go away, or just a highly modified version of capitalism, I don't know. But free market capitalism is absolutely going to drive us off the cliff.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Basically we're talking a massive overhaul with very little financial benefit (and often quite the opposite) to those owning "the means of production". Not just those owning the means of production. There will be massive consequences to those using what is produced. Doing this in the time frame needed, without having the disruption of doing it causing millions of deaths, is not going to be easy.

pluma 7y ago

The problem is that we're well past the point where "carbon-neutral" is good enough. We not only need to stop causing additional harm, we need to figure out ways to undo at least some of the harm we've already done. Given the limited time frame, there's simply not enough time left to "upgrade" all production to be carbon-negative (or at least carbon-neutral). Even if we could magically swap out all factories and infrastructure, we would still be overproducing and depleting scarce resources. Plus of course thermodynamics are working against us: burning oil is easy. Extracting carbon from the air and refining it to create a usable resource on the other hand is extremely difficult and energy intensive. Trying to ramp up recycling instead of harvesting raw materials would create a massive additional need for energy, meaning we would not only have to shift to renewables but also do so while ramping up the energy production. Plus of course nuclear power still requires mining for raw materials and building the batteries needed to store all the variable power from wind, solar etc would require even more (and rarer) raw materials. Basically we're talking a massive overhaul with very little financial benefit (and often quite the opposite) to those owning "the means of production". The costs of not doing it may be incalculable but the costs of doing it are far more direct and immediate. Capitalism doesn't optimise for long-term cost reduction. An individual capitalist may prefer long-term survival over short-term profits but the economic system as a whole doesn't work that way and an individual "taking the risk" of investing will be punished (i.e. lose market share, go bankrupt or be bought out) if the market outperforms them in the meantime. That's why I'm saying the problem is capitalism: it's not some Marxist-Leninist navel-gazing. The very way capitalism works makes it impossible for those with the power to do so (i.e. "the market") to do anything about climate change. It's one big prisoner's dilemma. The only way to win this would be either for a significant majority of wealthy people to cooperate and invest everything they have, or for a single individual to control the majority of the market and force the decision (which of course doesn't work if more than one person does this) -- guess which strategy is more appealing.

GVIrish 7y ago
> The problem is that we're well past the point where "carbon-neutral" is good enough. We not only need to stop causing additional harm, we need to figure out ways to undo at least some of the harm we've already done. Agreed. I think we're already well into a new phase in humanity where geo-engineering on a massive scale is going to be needed if we don't want to slip back into the dark ages, or worse. Unfortunately there may not be any practical solutions available to us. I agree with a lot of what you said, I don't the markets can solve the problem. It will take wide scale government intervention. Maybe that means capitalism as we know must go away, or just a highly modified version of capitalism, I don't know. But free market capitalism is absolutely going to drive us off the cliff.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Basically we're talking a massive overhaul with very little financial benefit (and often quite the opposite) to those owning "the means of production". Not just those owning the means of production. There will be massive consequences to those using what is produced. Doing this in the time frame needed, without having the disruption of doing it causing millions of deaths, is not going to be easy.