4 ms·

All human actions have resource costs, trees and paper need absurd amounts of water, specially given that companies use pines and eucalyptus as base material fo

All human actions have resource costs, trees and paper need absurd amounts of water, specially given that companies use pines and eucalyptus as base material for paper pulp production both species are always starving for water The reality is that the system requires pigovian taxation to internalize their natural externalized costs, capitalism and specifically our modern version of neoclassical neoliberalism loves to socialize loses and privatize profits, we need public action against that If you wanna hear my angle, I'd go for making Senates and congresses across the world secret, secret ballots, secret voting and secret deliverations and debates If you wanna know as to why read on James DAngelo's Toxic Transparency Paradox, his congressional investigations on the systemic benefits of secrecy can be found on http://www.congressionalresearch.org/ http://www.congressionalresearch.org/

maxerickson 6y ago
Trees (grown for wood fiber) pretty much aren't irrigated. I'm sure there's exceptions, but not on a significant amount of land used for fiber production.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  My experience with this comes mainly from Uruguay, Argentinian and specifically Chilean pine and eucalyptus forests used to make wood pulp, which are causing quite serious issues with water management, less so in Uruguay as it is a wetter country, but south of Chile has seen quite the protests over this issue as some of these specific type of trees (Eucalyptus) simply drain the land too much as they evolved for a different environment
sthnblllII 6y ago
> relegate the lobbyists to the lobby – giving them no access to markup sessions and no access to committee votes These are some hot takes, but somewhat surprisingly they check out. Will read more.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  Yeah, yeah D'Angelo goes further and interviews law professors on this issue, and they all not only seem perplexed at first, but agree with him later, and the caveat, is that US Law as it is taught from an orthodox angle, is only really taught after the 1970's or so, and don't really cover how legislation used to be done before it, so law students would naturally assume that "things always were the same way" when it came to how transparency was handled! Here are some of the talks he has had with Law professors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfzvhRhmgI&list=PLzctEq7iZD-60bCLvKu0uPRilT1qSThT- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfzvhRhmgI&list=PLzctEq7iZD... And some other snippets in general https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC88MPXm1jZPNRwdOGyBNqqg/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC88MPXm1jZPNRwdOGyBNqqg/vid... By now I am convinced that this is the missing piece, that accounts for not only the split between worker-productivity and wages, but everything else since the 1970's, this transparency revolution, with the Toxic Transparency Paradox aftermath is what set the course to where we are today with legislative gridlock, polarization, increases in wealth inequality, oligarchic corporatism etc
1propionyl 6y ago
Even without addressing the majority of the substance that the parent comment is trying to portray, there should be one major takeaway: Unregulated markets don't work, except in the way that cancer works to propagate itself before its host dies. They're not self-balancing ecosystems. After all, they're comprised of people. Completely managed and controlled markets similarly don't work, and for largely the same reasons. After all, they're comprised of people. Humanity has a unique knack for at least these two things: 1) constructing games, 2) cheating those games it has created for itself to play. It's no longer enough to hedge against the risks of idealized perfectly spherical and rational actors bouncing about. We have to begin to take into account our own complexity and how we subvert the rules we lay out for ourselves.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  The idea we can regulate bad systems into being good is just dumb
  - jbay808 6y ago
    No, it's not. It's pretty much what regulation is for. CFCs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol Asbestos: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law Lead paint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_United_States#State_action_against_the_lead_paint_industry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_Unit... Leaded gasoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Phaseout_and_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Phaseout_and_ba...
    - AshWolfy 6y ago
      We knew asbestos was bad since the 1890s and it wasnt regulated until 1967, lead was known to be bad since the mid 1800s while lead paint wasnt banned until 1978 and leaded gas wasnt banned until 2000, lead paint and pipes are still plentiful across the US. Cigarettes were known to be harmful since the 1890s, and the government didnt do anything about it until 1964. Regulation can be successful, but at best its slow and incremental, and in the long term corporations will weaken and subvert them. Just having a system which incentivizes good behavior in the first place would be better than trying to regulate bad systems

maxerickson 6y ago

Trees (grown for wood fiber) pretty much aren't irrigated. I'm sure there's exceptions, but not on a significant amount of land used for fiber production.

CyanBird 6y ago
My experience with this comes mainly from Uruguay, Argentinian and specifically Chilean pine and eucalyptus forests used to make wood pulp, which are causing quite serious issues with water management, less so in Uruguay as it is a wetter country, but south of Chile has seen quite the protests over this issue as some of these specific type of trees (Eucalyptus) simply drain the land too much as they evolved for a different environment

sthnblllII 6y ago

> relegate the lobbyists to the lobby – giving them no access to markup sessions and no access to committee votes These are some hot takes, but somewhat surprisingly they check out. Will read more.

CyanBird 6y ago
Yeah, yeah D'Angelo goes further and interviews law professors on this issue, and they all not only seem perplexed at first, but agree with him later, and the caveat, is that US Law as it is taught from an orthodox angle, is only really taught after the 1970's or so, and don't really cover how legislation used to be done before it, so law students would naturally assume that "things always were the same way" when it came to how transparency was handled! Here are some of the talks he has had with Law professors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfzvhRhmgI&list=PLzctEq7iZD-60bCLvKu0uPRilT1qSThT- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfzvhRhmgI&list=PLzctEq7iZD... And some other snippets in general https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC88MPXm1jZPNRwdOGyBNqqg/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC88MPXm1jZPNRwdOGyBNqqg/vid... By now I am convinced that this is the missing piece, that accounts for not only the split between worker-productivity and wages, but everything else since the 1970's, this transparency revolution, with the Toxic Transparency Paradox aftermath is what set the course to where we are today with legislative gridlock, polarization, increases in wealth inequality, oligarchic corporatism etc

1propionyl 6y ago

Even without addressing the majority of the substance that the parent comment is trying to portray, there should be one major takeaway: Unregulated markets don't work, except in the way that cancer works to propagate itself before its host dies. They're not self-balancing ecosystems. After all, they're comprised of people. Completely managed and controlled markets similarly don't work, and for largely the same reasons. After all, they're comprised of people. Humanity has a unique knack for at least these two things: 1) constructing games, 2) cheating those games it has created for itself to play. It's no longer enough to hedge against the risks of idealized perfectly spherical and rational actors bouncing about. We have to begin to take into account our own complexity and how we subvert the rules we lay out for ourselves.

AshWolfy 6y ago
The idea we can regulate bad systems into being good is just dumb
- jbay808 6y ago
  No, it's not. It's pretty much what regulation is for. CFCs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol Asbestos: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law Lead paint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_United_States#State_action_against_the_lead_paint_industry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_Unit... Leaded gasoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Phaseout_and_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Phaseout_and_ba...
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    We knew asbestos was bad since the 1890s and it wasnt regulated until 1967, lead was known to be bad since the mid 1800s while lead paint wasnt banned until 1978 and leaded gas wasnt banned until 2000, lead paint and pipes are still plentiful across the US. Cigarettes were known to be harmful since the 1890s, and the government didnt do anything about it until 1964. Regulation can be successful, but at best its slow and incremental, and in the long term corporations will weaken and subvert them. Just having a system which incentivizes good behavior in the first place would be better than trying to regulate bad systems