3 ms·

I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I wan

by spodek 7y ago

I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face. Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-teens-lawsuit-federal-government-over-climate-change-1.5335349 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-tee... This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium, saying they are progressing https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-governments-over-climate-change-and-its-working https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-gover....

gridlockd 7y ago
> ...they are progressing What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!
at-fates-hands 7y ago
> Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford? By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  Is it outside our imagination that society would change? Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified? (edit: spelling)
  - eng888888 7y ago
    I don't think it will change as long as the US is the hegemon superpower. Not because they are evil or anything, but because individualism it's the core tenet of the US. Communal and unified?, 90% of the Americans would say that's communism
    - mikelyons 7y ago
      Sure 90% of Americans now, but if society is changing, that could include a change out of the hegemon superpower position, and a change in perceptions and attitudes of things current average Americans would say is communism. It seems to my limited perspective that America is moving more left, and that Trumpism is a reaction against that.
- journalctl 7y ago
  Let’s keep polluting then, because at least then rich or poor, we’ll all be equally dead.
- tito 7y ago
  I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow. For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money. In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful. Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.

by spodek 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> ...they are progressing What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!

at-fates-hands 7y ago

> Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford? By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.

mikelyons 7y ago
Is it outside our imagination that society would change? Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified? (edit: spelling)
- eng888888 7y ago
  I don't think it will change as long as the US is the hegemon superpower. Not because they are evil or anything, but because individualism it's the core tenet of the US. Communal and unified?, 90% of the Americans would say that's communism
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    Sure 90% of Americans now, but if society is changing, that could include a change out of the hegemon superpower position, and a change in perceptions and attitudes of things current average Americans would say is communism. It seems to my limited perspective that America is moving more left, and that Trumpism is a reaction against that.
journalctl 7y ago
Let’s keep polluting then, because at least then rich or poor, we’ll all be equally dead.
tito 7y ago
I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow. For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money. In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful. Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.