4 ms·

It might make the cost of doing / entering business too high, to the point where things can't actually proceed.

throwaway894345 7y ago
Right, that's the feature. If you can't afford to go into business without polluting (or otherwise externalizing costs), you can't afford to go into business. If we want to keep the barrier to entrepreneurship low, we can subsidize it, but we don't get to pretend that pollution/etc is free. It feels more expensive because we either raise the barrier to entrepreneurship or we raise taxes, but the reality is that we've been subsidized by a whole bunch of environmental debt.
- drcross 7y ago
  Great intention but this is no different than big companies lobbying for more regulation in their sector to "pull the ladder up" because they are the only company who can pay the costs. The result is companies get bigger and smaller players lose out. Everyone ends up working for minimum wage except very few rich people.
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    See the second sentence of my previous post.
  - xkemp 7y ago
    I'm starting to believe this meme was really concocted by some of those "big companies". It's quite brilliant, actually: using the public's hatred of big corporation to actively protect them against any changes.
- core-questions 7y ago
  That's not a feature. You're basically pointing to a world where only established multinational corporations are going to be able to afford to do anything at all. This results in more money being extracted from local economies into the coffers of the ultra-rich for no gain to us other than ostensibly environmental protection, which clearly others can just pay to get around (since nowhere in the discussion was any real suggestion that the actual implementation in practice was going to be any different, just the bond money up front). > environmental debt Oh great, it's the 2020 meme. First I've seen it, but I just know I'm gonna be reading this bs phrase everywhere now.
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    > That's not a feature. You're basically pointing to a world where only established multinational corporations are going to be able to afford to do anything at all. See the second sentence of the post you replied to. > Oh great, it's the 2020 meme. First I've seen it, but I just know I'm gonna be reading this bs phrase everywhere now. Look, I'm not a lefty, I'm a moderate independent, and I'm probably fiscally conservative, which is precisely why I hold this position (it's "personal responsibility" applied to macroeconomics). So put away any notions of partisanship you might have had. "environmental debt" is exactly what this is (by all indicators, anyway), and if you disagree feel free to substantiate.
    - core-questions 7y ago
      Nah, it's a fair enough phrase, I just foresee it being used as a bludgeon soon enough
  - xkemp 7y ago
    > established multinational corporations > money being extracted from local economies > the coffers of the ultra-rich For someone complaining about "environmental debt", a term I have never seen before, you do use a lot of tired phrases. I also don't quite believe that international shipping is quite as amendable to scrappy little startups with little money as you make it out to be? > other than ostensibly environmental protection Yes, the benefit of the proposed scheme is environmental protection, and therefore it is no surprise that you identify it as it's primary benefit ("ostensibly" being a meaningless qualifier used to vaguely dismiss the idea without feeling the need to argue the point). Both the principle as well as the mechanisms are well established. Car insurance comes to mind, or really any liability insurance. An insurance scheme would, in fact, significantly lower the capital requirements compared to straight-up bonds, in the same way that you don't have to put up a million $ to get that amount of coverage for your car. > actual implementation in practice Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Deny entry to foreign vessels not complying.
    - core-questions 7y ago

Right, that's the feature. If you can't afford to go into business without polluting (or otherwise externalizing costs), you can't afford to go into business. If we want to keep the barrier to entrepreneurship low, we can subsidize it, but we don't get to pretend that pollution/etc is free. It feels more expensive because we either raise the barrier to entrepreneurship or we raise taxes, but the reality is that we've been subsidized by a whole bunch of environmental debt.

drcross 7y ago
Great intention but this is no different than big companies lobbying for more regulation in their sector to "pull the ladder up" because they are the only company who can pay the costs. The result is companies get bigger and smaller players lose out. Everyone ends up working for minimum wage except very few rich people.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  See the second sentence of my previous post.
- xkemp 7y ago
  I'm starting to believe this meme was really concocted by some of those "big companies". It's quite brilliant, actually: using the public's hatred of big corporation to actively protect them against any changes.
core-questions 7y ago
That's not a feature. You're basically pointing to a world where only established multinational corporations are going to be able to afford to do anything at all. This results in more money being extracted from local economies into the coffers of the ultra-rich for no gain to us other than ostensibly environmental protection, which clearly others can just pay to get around (since nowhere in the discussion was any real suggestion that the actual implementation in practice was going to be any different, just the bond money up front). > environmental debt Oh great, it's the 2020 meme. First I've seen it, but I just know I'm gonna be reading this bs phrase everywhere now.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  > That's not a feature. You're basically pointing to a world where only established multinational corporations are going to be able to afford to do anything at all. See the second sentence of the post you replied to. > Oh great, it's the 2020 meme. First I've seen it, but I just know I'm gonna be reading this bs phrase everywhere now. Look, I'm not a lefty, I'm a moderate independent, and I'm probably fiscally conservative, which is precisely why I hold this position (it's "personal responsibility" applied to macroeconomics). So put away any notions of partisanship you might have had. "environmental debt" is exactly what this is (by all indicators, anyway), and if you disagree feel free to substantiate.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    Nah, it's a fair enough phrase, I just foresee it being used as a bludgeon soon enough
- xkemp 7y ago
  > established multinational corporations > money being extracted from local economies > the coffers of the ultra-rich For someone complaining about "environmental debt", a term I have never seen before, you do use a lot of tired phrases. I also don't quite believe that international shipping is quite as amendable to scrappy little startups with little money as you make it out to be? > other than ostensibly environmental protection Yes, the benefit of the proposed scheme is environmental protection, and therefore it is no surprise that you identify it as it's primary benefit ("ostensibly" being a meaningless qualifier used to vaguely dismiss the idea without feeling the need to argue the point). Both the principle as well as the mechanisms are well established. Car insurance comes to mind, or really any liability insurance. An insurance scheme would, in fact, significantly lower the capital requirements compared to straight-up bonds, in the same way that you don't have to put up a million $ to get that amount of coverage for your car. > actual implementation in practice Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Deny entry to foreign vessels not complying.
  - core-questions 7y ago