6 ms·

Unfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown. https://www.reuters

• throwaway888abc 6y ago
  Oh, F*ck :( Greedy human race Signed: bleeding coral reef with sad penguin
  • teruakohatu 6y ago
    It's the tragedy of the commons. The only way to change it is for local/state/national governments to remove the tragedy.
    • zapita 6y ago
      But nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.
      • teruakohatu 6y ago
        A polluting factory has to exist somewhere. Edit: I am getting a lot of down votes so let me clarify: if external costs are not internalised, humans will ignore it. Internalising the cost does not even need to mean tax. Many clothing brands in my country, even the budget brands (think Walmart), have been pressured by consumers into using more ethical factories. The same could be done by forcing companies to disclose what factories they use and the factory carbon footprint.
        • TeMPOraL 6y ago
          It could have been non-polluting, but instead of redesigning, it's easier now to get nations to compete against each other for the location of that plant - and as part of that competition, relax the environmental protections. The "freedom of movement" for corporations (freedom of movement of capital?) has plenty of benefits, but this is one of the negative side effects.
          • teruakohatu 6y ago
            My solution is for all governments to take responsibility, tax pollution and for consumers to understand the environmental costs of products, possibly by forcing disclosure. I don't understand what your solution is. Ban importing goods? Tax imported goods based on factory pollution and standards?
            • TeMPOraL 6y ago
              Knowing the solution is the easy part. The hard part is how to get there, and how to keep the solution working. "All governments taking responsibility simultaneously" is not something that ever happens. And even if it did, in a moment of selfless reflection of all global leaders, weaker economies will still have a powerful incentive to relax the standards to compete better with stronger economies. I don't have a solution, I'm just saying how things are. Restricting the ability of multinationals to play countries against each other would help in this matter, but it would probably gum up the economy too hard to be worth the attempt (not to mention, it would have to be another thing most governments would have to agree on simultaneously, otherwise the ones to attempt it immediately lose). The overall point is: it is a tragedy of the commons, just not a local one - an international one. The solution to tragedy of the commons is to have a higher authority unilaterally force participants to limit their use of the commons. But we don't have any higher authority above nation states, so we're ill-equipped to solve tragedies of the commons at international level.
            • throwaway888abc 6y ago
              Yes, What is difference between ie. CO2 and other thrash we already producing (as society). So far we didn't accepted that we need 'pay' or handle CO2 as rubbish (while PPM constantly growing). But take your dog poo in park or pay fine (Plastic anyone?). Again, What is difference ?
      • TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Which means large corporations get to influence policies, even without any lobbying. "Dear senator, what do you mean those environmental protection regulations apply to us? The regulations of the neighbour country $x, that also invited us to build our 10 000 jobs worth plant on their soil, are nowhere near as onerous. We might need to take them up on their offer. Perhaps at least you can cut us a tax break?"
        • throwaway888abc 6y ago
          Yup, the rationale inside knows that this is difficult problem to tackle. I let the hearth speak for small moment.
        • akie 6y ago
          "Well, dear corporation, if you want to sell your products to our citizens, you have to play by our rules. We'll let you know that your direct competitor already agreed to these rules yesterday."
          • TeMPOraL 6y ago
            "I'm sorry Senator, you must be confused. Our products meet the health&safety standards prescribed by yours as well as international regulations in this region. You cannot, legally, stop stores from reselling our products, nor you can prevent customers from ordering them on-line. Meanwhile, if you're satisfied with the smaller plant of 2000 jobs of our competitor, we'll happily set up shop at your neighbour's. It was nice dealing with you. I hope you don't mind if I mention your name at the press conference we'll call soon to announce signing of the deal for our new plant with your neighbour."
            • akie 6y ago
              "We have and will use our authority to prevent the sale or re-sale of products that do not conform to the rule of law. Please be so kind to mention my name at your press conference, so that my citizens know their government stands up for their rights."
    • mistermann 6y ago
      Even assuming they are capable of that (I am doubtful), reaching consensus on the idea seems quite a bit of a long shot. Something likely needs to be done though, somehow.
  • BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    How inevitable is the rise of casual environmental terrorism? (using the word 'terrorism' because that's how it will be labelled by media and government, no matter the scope)