5 ms·
Nope they can't price this in; and would look and whistle the other way if they had too.
by sambull 7y ago
Nope they can't price this in; and would look and whistle the other way if they had too.
- ianai 7y agoDo you want a climate change dictator?
- sambull 7y agoDictator? I simply said the market/and economists can't price in damage to our environment and won't. If you feel any regulation on a corporation is being a dictator than maybe the answer is yes in your context. We've had to dictate the direction many times in the past when industry has become to exploitative of either labor or resources.
- ThomPete 7y agoThe latest major scale dictation was Chinas 1 child policy and that lead to a bunch of different problems. And what businesses are being exploitative? 95% of what you take for granted is made by using fossil fuels whether, tires, medicine, food, concrete, cement, steel manufactoring, computers, machines, contact lenses, textiles, pesticides, plumbing, housing, damns, solar cells, windmills, the internet and I could go on. What are you suggesting we dictate and what price are you ready to pay for this? Are you also going to go to war with china when they won't stop pulling their population out of poverty. You speak as if the environment was this perfect non-hostile place before we came along, but reality is it's the other way around. Nature is hostile and dangerous and we've used fossil fuels to make it less dangerous. The positive externalities if fossil fuels far outweigh the negative. That doesn't mean we should continue using fossil fuels but we better have a realistic alterantive IMO.
- radicalbyte 7y agoThe market certainly can be regulated in such a way as to effectively price in the costs. If we can have companies following constructs such as Sarbanes-Oxley then they can most certainly follow the constraints of environmental constructs. Unless you mean that certain vested interests will bankroll politicians to cut regulation? Then yes, that is a very big problems (see: Koch industries buying their way out of environmental legislation) but not insurmountable.
- ianai 7y agoSo I don’t have the answer here. I do like Jay Inslee’s argument for simply making mandates to cut emissions and carbon usage. Ie mandating ever increasingly efficient fuel ratings on vehicles. He says that’s an easier policy change than forcing costs on people through laws or created markets that can be undone in a following cycle. It’s all got to be on the table and considered though. The entire energy footprint of almost all of the industrial revolution through to current needs to be undone in some way. There’s an inherent requirement on the energy that must be expended in order to do that, by the laws of thermodynamics/physics.
- ben_w 7y agoAre the laws of physics democratic?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- revscat 7y agoMaybe? You’re still seem to be thinking about this in anachronistic terms. Every political and economic philosophy is based upon the unspoken assumption that there will always be a climate hospitable to human life. This means that neoliberalism is flawed at its core. Every economic and social theory that does not start with addressing the external costs of carbon dioxide is incorrect at its foundation.
- ivanhoe 7y agoWithout some form of government or entity to dictate and enforce the laws the free market wouldn't stay free for long, country would turn into Somalia quickly. Why is this different?