3 ms·

...or the rich people could just pay the poor people so they don’t have to engage in deforestation? That money could be invested into other sectors of their eco

...or the rich people could just pay the poor people so they don’t have to engage in deforestation? That money could be invested into other sectors of their economy, raising the overall standard of living?

pessimizer 6y ago
That sounds like a solution that would slow deforestation and increase fossil fuel consumption. It also sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it too; the relative poverty of the people doing the deforestation enables the wealth of the people overconsuming. Maybe resources should be heavily transferred from the rich to the poor, removing the ability of the rich to overconsume, and enabling the former poor to stop deforesting while living as efficiently as possible (although their carbon output would probably net go up.) Maybe our economies could focus on delivering the most comfort and security at the highest energy efficiency, rather than on tricking the wealthy into throwing things away as quickly as possible after purchase and on maximizing the burning of gasoline and jet fuel.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Ideally yes but jn practice unfortunately it often is effectively pocketted by corrupt local government officals while trees are poached by the poor people. Tourism gets shit on for its travel miles but a nature tourist economy gives incentives to keep it clean and provides some local jobs even if they aren't the best ones.
dwiel 6y ago
How about a carbon tax which once collected is redistributed evenly amongst everyone. This way people who use the most carbon will be paying the people who use the least carbon for the priviledge. It also prices in the externality through the entire market so every individual doesnt need to keep track of the co2 use of every product and service they purchase which is extremely difficult.

3 ms·

...or the rich people could just pay the poor people so they don’t have to engage in deforestation? That money could be invested into other sectors of their eco

by claudeganon 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago
That sounds like a solution that would slow deforestation and increase fossil fuel consumption. It also sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it too; the relative poverty of the people doing the deforestation enables the wealth of the people overconsuming. Maybe resources should be heavily transferred from the rich to the poor, removing the ability of the rich to overconsume, and enabling the former poor to stop deforesting while living as efficiently as possible (although their carbon output would probably net go up.) Maybe our economies could focus on delivering the most comfort and security at the highest energy efficiency, rather than on tricking the wealthy into throwing things away as quickly as possible after purchase and on maximizing the burning of gasoline and jet fuel.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Ideally yes but jn practice unfortunately it often is effectively pocketted by corrupt local government officals while trees are poached by the poor people. Tourism gets shit on for its travel miles but a nature tourist economy gives incentives to keep it clean and provides some local jobs even if they aren't the best ones.
dwiel 6y ago
How about a carbon tax which once collected is redistributed evenly amongst everyone. This way people who use the most carbon will be paying the people who use the least carbon for the priviledge. It also prices in the externality through the entire market so every individual doesnt need to keep track of the co2 use of every product and service they purchase which is extremely difficult.