5 ms·

No. Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. Be more full proof and apply the same rules to import/ex

No. Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. Be more full proof and apply the same rules to import/export. This is how oil, fast food, meat, luxury, etc industries want you to behave. Recycle, reuse and reduce was a failure which was proposed the same way you did. Consumer responsibility could be an additional measure but not the main focus. It's their fault first and foremost.

Sabinus 6y ago
The problem is, conservatives and others worldwide oppose this because it imposes costs on business in just one country, leaving businesses there with a disadvantage in world markets. Policies like these need to be coupled with import tariffs to countries with dirty industries, else we just end up legislating all our industry away and instead buy from countries who have no problem with polluting the environment.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. In my opinion, there is no environmentally friendly practice that allows the world to consume at the pace it wants to. You can’t have multiple annual flights to vacation destinations, large vehicles, and quarter acre lots per family. Not only can the tiny proportion of the world enjoying the above not have it anymore, but to mitigate the damage already done, we probably need to come to a near stop rather than just slow down from 80mph to 40mph. All while a few billion people in the developing world are looking forward to their children being able to fly to destinations for vacations and enjoy a backyard and nice car.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  A high carbon emission tax can force people to reduce their useless flights. Aviation industry's global emission is at 2 percent and only tiny percentage (3-5%?) of world population travel by air. A lot of problems is also due to inefficient traffic control and laws. Plus, that include air cargo. I can't find anything that accounts only for consumer flights.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    We’re in agreement that the way to solve the problem of overconsumption is to raise the cost of consuming by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. Problem is any politician that proposes it will get voted out because people want to consume. So until a a large majority of people are willing to forgo the type of life desired based on what people are used to and currently enjoying, it seems impossible to impose the requisite level of taxation.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      As I already pointed out, only a small amount of people travel by air regularly. So I really doubt that would be a problem for election. For other industries, it's a mixed bag. Some will be welcomed such as reduction in planned obsolescence, better public transportation, more greenery, less trash on roads, breathable air, etc. Most people won't notice inefficient coal power plants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        People with resources travel by air regularly, and they influence others. Also, people like to believe they will one day live the jet setting life, so taking that option away could be perceived as a negative. People also prefer personal car transportation versus public transportation. Public transport requires living in high density environments, which means no personal backyards, no driveways for your 2+ car households, etc. Fossil fuels without the accompanying tax make cheap things possible, like household supplies and convenient packaging. Making fossil fuels more expensive hits everyone's quality of life, and we can see that when fuel prices go up and now everyone is complaining about increases in prices of food and materials. >Most people won't notice inefficient coal powerplants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it. If it was possible to offer electricity cheaper, why would it not already be the case?
        searchableguy 6y ago

Sabinus 6y ago

The problem is, conservatives and others worldwide oppose this because it imposes costs on business in just one country, leaving businesses there with a disadvantage in world markets. Policies like these need to be coupled with import tariffs to countries with dirty industries, else we just end up legislating all our industry away and instead buy from countries who have no problem with polluting the environment.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. In my opinion, there is no environmentally friendly practice that allows the world to consume at the pace it wants to. You can’t have multiple annual flights to vacation destinations, large vehicles, and quarter acre lots per family. Not only can the tiny proportion of the world enjoying the above not have it anymore, but to mitigate the damage already done, we probably need to come to a near stop rather than just slow down from 80mph to 40mph. All while a few billion people in the developing world are looking forward to their children being able to fly to destinations for vacations and enjoy a backyard and nice car.

searchableguy 6y ago
A high carbon emission tax can force people to reduce their useless flights. Aviation industry's global emission is at 2 percent and only tiny percentage (3-5%?) of world population travel by air. A lot of problems is also due to inefficient traffic control and laws. Plus, that include air cargo. I can't find anything that accounts only for consumer flights.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  We’re in agreement that the way to solve the problem of overconsumption is to raise the cost of consuming by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. Problem is any politician that proposes it will get voted out because people want to consume. So until a a large majority of people are willing to forgo the type of life desired based on what people are used to and currently enjoying, it seems impossible to impose the requisite level of taxation.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    As I already pointed out, only a small amount of people travel by air regularly. So I really doubt that would be a problem for election. For other industries, it's a mixed bag. Some will be welcomed such as reduction in planned obsolescence, better public transportation, more greenery, less trash on roads, breathable air, etc. Most people won't notice inefficient coal power plants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      People with resources travel by air regularly, and they influence others. Also, people like to believe they will one day live the jet setting life, so taking that option away could be perceived as a negative. People also prefer personal car transportation versus public transportation. Public transport requires living in high density environments, which means no personal backyards, no driveways for your 2+ car households, etc. Fossil fuels without the accompanying tax make cheap things possible, like household supplies and convenient packaging. Making fossil fuels more expensive hits everyone's quality of life, and we can see that when fuel prices go up and now everyone is complaining about increases in prices of food and materials. >Most people won't notice inefficient coal powerplants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it. If it was possible to offer electricity cheaper, why would it not already be the case?
      - searchableguy 6y ago