5 ms·

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 al

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
  > Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Requiring insurance is not the same as requiring the money to be put aside up front like a bond, which was what was being suggested earlier in the thread. I have no issue with insurance requirements if you think it's possible to run an insurance business profitably that (a) doesn't charge so much that we still have the same problem and (b) actually has the money and will actually pay out when a billion dollar environmental disaster happens. I don't think the economics of that work. As for > a lot of tired phrases complaining about the ultra-rich establishing barriers to entry that keeps the little guy out is never going to be "tired" until it stops being the default operating mode of these organizations.
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    > Requiring insurance is not the same as requiring the money to be put aside up front like a bond, which was what was being suggested earlier in the thread. The suggestion you're referring to was mine, and I suggested either insurance or a bond. > I don't think the economics of that work. The current economics only "work" now because the books are cooked. No one is accounting for pollution. Like I've said before, we can address the environment and keep the barrier of entry to entrepreneurship low: subsidies and tax breaks for small businesses to offset the regulatory burden. Lastly, I'm mostly fixating on the environment/pollution for convenience, but we should really be doing this anywhere that we are externalizing costs.
pvaldes 7y ago
Environmental debt is not a new concept at all. And is a serious concept used by many people since decades and not coined to be taken as a joke

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
> Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Requiring insurance is not the same as requiring the money to be put aside up front like a bond, which was what was being suggested earlier in the thread. I have no issue with insurance requirements if you think it's possible to run an insurance business profitably that (a) doesn't charge so much that we still have the same problem and (b) actually has the money and will actually pay out when a billion dollar environmental disaster happens. I don't think the economics of that work. As for > a lot of tired phrases complaining about the ultra-rich establishing barriers to entry that keeps the little guy out is never going to be "tired" until it stops being the default operating mode of these organizations.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  > Requiring insurance is not the same as requiring the money to be put aside up front like a bond, which was what was being suggested earlier in the thread. The suggestion you're referring to was mine, and I suggested either insurance or a bond. > I don't think the economics of that work. The current economics only "work" now because the books are cooked. No one is accounting for pollution. Like I've said before, we can address the environment and keep the barrier of entry to entrepreneurship low: subsidies and tax breaks for small businesses to offset the regulatory burden. Lastly, I'm mostly fixating on the environment/pollution for convenience, but we should really be doing this anywhere that we are externalizing costs.

pvaldes 7y ago

Environmental debt is not a new concept at all. And is a serious concept used by many people since decades and not coined to be taken as a joke