3 ms·

I think you would probably agree that those technological shifts require significant policy shifts, like a carbon tax, right? Does your pessimism about social e

I think you would probably agree that those technological shifts require significant policy shifts, like a carbon tax, right? Does your pessimism about social engineering extend to getting public support for those kinds of policy shifts? (I agree that individual choices to eg fly less will not be a major component of any solution we reach.)

beerandt 7y ago
How is that not still social engineering? It's just collective and punitive instead of individual and guilt driven. A carbon tax (at least without going 100% to sequestration) is only an behavior penalty. It's not even a net gain, it's just slowing a net loss. There's nothing innovative about that. The sequestration part of the equation is where there's potential for technological breakthroughs. If we go carbon negative, it won't be because it requires a change in lifestyle, but because we find a cheap way to offset our carbon generation. And I mean literally pulling carbon from thin air (or water). Not using accounting trickery to buy some emission "offset" that a developing population surely would have hypothetically used, had you not paid them cash money (along with a sizable percentage to some broker who has friends in DC). I think you would find much less opposition, no matter the government's cost, once 1) a plan is laid out that doesn't require a regression in anyone's lifestyle, and 2) doesn't involve a punitive cost to sustain that lifestyle, and 3) doesn't involve any component resembling wealth re-distribution, or buying credit that amounts to paying someone else to not do something.
- willis936 7y ago
  A carbon tax is not paying someone to not do something. It is charging someone for the actual cost of their actions. It is pure utilitarianism.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.
    - willis936 7y ago
      I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?
      - beerandt 7y ago
        I'm speaking as a matter of strategy. A carbon tax might work, and be seen as a victory, tactically, but will be the wrong move, strategically. It prevents addition of co2, but does not subtract. Focus on encouraging and incentives for subtraction, not preventing addition. If you want people to get on board. (I get that reducing emissions means less to sequester. That's thinking short term, and beyond minor cutbacks, a political loser. A successful solution won't require that to be effective.) I'm saying anything punitive and negatively coercive is the wrong approach. It might technically work, but won't ever be successful politically. Unless we go full authoritarian regime. As soon as a large enough portion of the population is hit with having to change lifestyle, it's done for. Focus on solutions that don't require that.

beerandt 7y ago

How is that not still social engineering? It's just collective and punitive instead of individual and guilt driven. A carbon tax (at least without going 100% to sequestration) is only an behavior penalty. It's not even a net gain, it's just slowing a net loss. There's nothing innovative about that. The sequestration part of the equation is where there's potential for technological breakthroughs. If we go carbon negative, it won't be because it requires a change in lifestyle, but because we find a cheap way to offset our carbon generation. And I mean literally pulling carbon from thin air (or water). Not using accounting trickery to buy some emission "offset" that a developing population surely would have hypothetically used, had you not paid them cash money (along with a sizable percentage to some broker who has friends in DC). I think you would find much less opposition, no matter the government's cost, once 1) a plan is laid out that doesn't require a regression in anyone's lifestyle, and 2) doesn't involve a punitive cost to sustain that lifestyle, and 3) doesn't involve any component resembling wealth re-distribution, or buying credit that amounts to paying someone else to not do something.

willis936 7y ago
A carbon tax is not paying someone to not do something. It is charging someone for the actual cost of their actions. It is pure utilitarianism.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.
  - willis936 7y ago
    I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I'm speaking as a matter of strategy. A carbon tax might work, and be seen as a victory, tactically, but will be the wrong move, strategically. It prevents addition of co2, but does not subtract. Focus on encouraging and incentives for subtraction, not preventing addition. If you want people to get on board. (I get that reducing emissions means less to sequester. That's thinking short term, and beyond minor cutbacks, a political loser. A successful solution won't require that to be effective.) I'm saying anything punitive and negatively coercive is the wrong approach. It might technically work, but won't ever be successful politically. Unless we go full authoritarian regime. As soon as a large enough portion of the population is hit with having to change lifestyle, it's done for. Focus on solutions that don't require that.