7 ms·

Being a part of society implies a social contract and some social control, it’s not black and white. Right now environmental impacts are not priced into many of

Being a part of society implies a social contract and some social control, it’s not black and white. Right now environmental impacts are not priced into many of our products (e.g. meat) and services (e.g. travel).

creato 7y ago
I agree. But tying the recovery from this pandemic to an attempt to regulate CO2 emission would be an absolutely atrocious way to accomplish either pandemic response or CO2 emissions response.
- pm90 7y ago
  Disagree. Crises are the best time to make political change. You have the attention of the whole country; rally them into making changes that can affect longer term gains. I feel somewhat strange writing that as someone who buys into the systems philosophy of "fix whats broken immediately, enhance it later". While that's true in computer systems, it doesn't seem uncommon in the realm of politics that periods of disasters are taken as opportunities to experiment with different ideas.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    > You have the attention of the whole country; rally them into making changes that can affect longer term gains. That’s not how politics works. You can’t abuse a crisis to ram something unrelated down the opposing party’s throat. You end up alienating everyone including the moderates. This never works with even something as simple as a government shutdown over budget considerations.
    - i2amsam 7y ago
      Well, we did invade Iraq, so sometimes it works.
    - techbio 7y ago
      Worked with contaminated vape toxicity and the Juul flavor ban.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      > That’s not how politics works. You can’t abuse a crisis to ram something unrelated down the opposing party’s throat. This is exactly how it works in practice in the US because the government is in terminal gridlock. > You end up alienating everyone including the moderates. The largest political party in the US is the non-voting party. Again, how it works in practice is that almost half of the population is already alienated.
    - buzzkillington 7y ago
      Have you seen the patriot act? Hell, it was written by the oppositions party current presidential front runner.
dannyw 7y ago
The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange benefits worth less than 2% of our carbon footprint?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  We will know when we finally enable the carbon tax on everything. Just set a total cap per unit area and then set the tax per tonne so total emissions are near that. Then we'll see if it's actually worth more than 2% since we'll be paying.
- sixo 7y ago
  Is 20% of that worth 80% of the benefit? When costs are not priced in the benefits are weighed against nothing.
- fiblye 7y ago
  Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC. Efforts should be made to reduce all sources of emissions.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC.." Wow - no, totally not. The value derived from some kinds of emissions and resulting costs for changing them is infinitely differentiable from others. For example, changing our electricity grid over to a more renewable resource, piece by piece, will maybe be a little bit more expensive, but it won't be disruptive. 'Stopping all flights' because airplanes emit CO2 could be devastating to the world economy, in addition to a massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere. The factory that produces medical drugs needs some kind of Co2 emissions - probably worth it. The one producing plastic bouncy balls for pets - probably not. 'The Market' has a lot of asymmetries, but it also contains a lot of intelligence, which is why it's always reasonable to be skeptical of arbitrary, system-wide controls. Using this crisis for a 'massive experiment in what to turn online next as the basis for CO2' is excessively totalitarian, because we wouldn't really know why, how, what we are doing, and the resulting social pain would be great. If there were a rational, clean path forward and 'good timing' for the introduction of specific measures, then yes, use the opportunity. But I don't see any of that.
hawkice 7y ago
To elucidate: there are a meaningful number of people - like people in West Virginia who feel Obama was pretty effective at using environmental regulation to essentially stop almost all domestic coal production (true) - that Obama wouldn't have hurt coal if it was found only in deep blue states. It is shockingly hard to hurt your political opponents livelihood and prove it was fair handed (which is almost certainly was) - at some point the politics of, anyone who hurts the field would by opposed by that field, take hold, and it feels like retribution, especially when they aren't given advance warning.
cinquemb 7y ago
> … implies a social contract and some social control "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order" And of those who refuse to consent, explicitly or tacitly and disagree with others definitions of "social order"? Do people expect them to just roll over without fighting?
- guerrilla 7y ago
  Yeah, social contract theory is something form a time when there was actually somewhere else to go. Now every border meets a border of some other domain.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    Personally, I would rather fight for making the world a cleaner/healthier place to live without trying to sacrifice socioeconomic well being, especially of those at the margins of our societies who can barely make a living doing the most laborious and strenuous tasks. Trying to take away/cut things people have come to expect and offer nothing of equivalent in return? Good luck with that.
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      You must be responding to the wrong person.
      - cinquemb 7y ago
        No, I was just continuing on my thoughts, not you in particular, but for everyone to see… ignore me at your own convenience :P

creato 7y ago

I agree. But tying the recovery from this pandemic to an attempt to regulate CO2 emission would be an absolutely atrocious way to accomplish either pandemic response or CO2 emissions response.

pm90 7y ago
Disagree. Crises are the best time to make political change. You have the attention of the whole country; rally them into making changes that can affect longer term gains. I feel somewhat strange writing that as someone who buys into the systems philosophy of "fix whats broken immediately, enhance it later". While that's true in computer systems, it doesn't seem uncommon in the realm of politics that periods of disasters are taken as opportunities to experiment with different ideas.
- kortilla 7y ago
  > You have the attention of the whole country; rally them into making changes that can affect longer term gains. That’s not how politics works. You can’t abuse a crisis to ram something unrelated down the opposing party’s throat. You end up alienating everyone including the moderates. This never works with even something as simple as a government shutdown over budget considerations.
  - i2amsam 7y ago
    Well, we did invade Iraq, so sometimes it works.
  - techbio 7y ago
    Worked with contaminated vape toxicity and the Juul flavor ban.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > That’s not how politics works. You can’t abuse a crisis to ram something unrelated down the opposing party’s throat. This is exactly how it works in practice in the US because the government is in terminal gridlock. > You end up alienating everyone including the moderates. The largest political party in the US is the non-voting party. Again, how it works in practice is that almost half of the population is already alienated.
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    Have you seen the patriot act? Hell, it was written by the oppositions party current presidential front runner.

dannyw 7y ago

The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Is the ability to travel, including all the business, leisure, and cultural exchange benefits worth less than 2% of our carbon footprint?

scarejunba 7y ago
We will know when we finally enable the carbon tax on everything. Just set a total cap per unit area and then set the tax per tonne so total emissions are near that. Then we'll see if it's actually worth more than 2% since we'll be paying.
sixo 7y ago
Is 20% of that worth 80% of the benefit? When costs are not priced in the benefits are weighed against nothing.
fiblye 7y ago
Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC. Efforts should be made to reduce all sources of emissions.
- jariel 7y ago
  "Everything is just a few percent here and there, and everybody shifts the blame saying we should be cutting XYZ instead of ABC.." Wow - no, totally not. The value derived from some kinds of emissions and resulting costs for changing them is infinitely differentiable from others. For example, changing our electricity grid over to a more renewable resource, piece by piece, will maybe be a little bit more expensive, but it won't be disruptive. 'Stopping all flights' because airplanes emit CO2 could be devastating to the world economy, in addition to a massive reduction in the quality of life of people everywhere. The factory that produces medical drugs needs some kind of Co2 emissions - probably worth it. The one producing plastic bouncy balls for pets - probably not. 'The Market' has a lot of asymmetries, but it also contains a lot of intelligence, which is why it's always reasonable to be skeptical of arbitrary, system-wide controls. Using this crisis for a 'massive experiment in what to turn online next as the basis for CO2' is excessively totalitarian, because we wouldn't really know why, how, what we are doing, and the resulting social pain would be great. If there were a rational, clean path forward and 'good timing' for the introduction of specific measures, then yes, use the opportunity. But I don't see any of that.

hawkice 7y ago

To elucidate: there are a meaningful number of people - like people in West Virginia who feel Obama was pretty effective at using environmental regulation to essentially stop almost all domestic coal production (true) - that Obama wouldn't have hurt coal if it was found only in deep blue states. It is shockingly hard to hurt your political opponents livelihood and prove it was fair handed (which is almost certainly was) - at some point the politics of, anyone who hurts the field would by opposed by that field, take hold, and it feels like retribution, especially when they aren't given advance warning.

cinquemb 7y ago

> … implies a social contract and some social control "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order" And of those who refuse to consent, explicitly or tacitly and disagree with others definitions of "social order"? Do people expect them to just roll over without fighting?

guerrilla 7y ago
Yeah, social contract theory is something form a time when there was actually somewhere else to go. Now every border meets a border of some other domain.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  Personally, I would rather fight for making the world a cleaner/healthier place to live without trying to sacrifice socioeconomic well being, especially of those at the margins of our societies who can barely make a living doing the most laborious and strenuous tasks. Trying to take away/cut things people have come to expect and offer nothing of equivalent in return? Good luck with that.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    You must be responding to the wrong person.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      No, I was just continuing on my thoughts, not you in particular, but for everyone to see… ignore me at your own convenience :P