9 ms·

The rise in totalitarian measures justified by protection of 'the environment" is striking me as a great cause for concern. The legal actions undertaken to for

The rise in totalitarian measures justified by protection of 'the environment" is striking me as a great cause for concern. The legal actions undertaken to force climate legislation are setting a dangerous precedent that can be used by any other group wanting to force their own pieces of legislation through.

arkitaip 6y ago
What are these totalitarian measures you speak of?
- nlqp 6y ago
  Forbidding incandescent light bulbs while forcing inferior expensive replacements on consumers to prop up the light bulb cartel. All while you can burn 100l of petrol per day, no questions asked. Forbidding new construction sites lest the yellow speckled violet frog's breeding habits are disturbed in order to prop up the rental extraction by oligarchs.
  - rozab 6y ago
    Why are incandescent light bulbs inferior, exactly?
    - nlqp 6y ago
      The comment says no such thing.
      - rozab 6y ago
        Ah, I meant to type the opposite
    - Narishma 6y ago
      They said the opposite.
  - yladiz 6y ago
    Light bulb cartel lol. But seriously: it's not like it's a zero-sum game and it's disingenuous to pretend it is as it justifies inaction and not having small wins that can add up over time. Specifically about lightbulbs, reducing the energy use of lightbulbs across the board is a win, just like reducing the amount of petrol burned.
    - jand 6y ago
      @light bulb cartel: see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
      - ramphastidae 6y ago
        > The cartel ceased operations in 1939 owing to the outbreak of World War II.
        Aerroon 6y ago
        But Planned Obsolescence didn't go anywhere. Nowadays it's all around us.
  - qart 6y ago
    The cartels were for incandescent light bulbs [1], rather than other kinds of lighting. It's harder for cartels to exist now, given that we can buy alternatives from other countries on Ebay and AliExpress. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
    - nlqp 6y ago
      In Europe most bulbs in the stores are expensive Philips, Osram, etc. products. Ikea bulbs are rebranded and also expensive. You can buy on Ebay of course, but that is not what most consumers do. I don't consider it competition if all brick and mortar stores do the same.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Who buys bulbs in the stores when there's a hundred thousand small vendors on local e-commerce sites, selling super cheap LED bulbs imported straight from Shenzhen? (The race to the bottom in LED lighting is another environmental issue, though. The cheap bulbs I see people buy are mostly garbage that's barely fit for purpose, and in a sane world would not be allowed to leave the assembly floor.)
        tap10 6y ago
        The average cost of buying something online, especially from China directly, is: - At least 1 hour of searching, market research, vetting the vendor (insofar that is possible at all). - Staying at home for multiple days when the delivery is expected, while frantically checking incorrect package trackers. - Alternatively, having the package delivered to the post office. Going there and waiting with 50 other people takes 2 hours. - If the vendor is dishonest or the package delivery fails, add another 4 hours at least. So the answer to your question is: Everyone who does not want to jump through these hoops or values their time.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        I talked about local vendors reselling things from China. Pretty much their entire value is in shielding the buyer from the inconveniences you listed. The real experience of a typical person I know is: - Go to your local eBay equivalent, look for LED lightbulbs, sort by price. - Pick the cheapest offer that doesn't look super-sketchy, place an order for half a dozen and pay for it, all with a few clicks. - Wait 2-5 days, depending on seasons and phase of the moon. - Depending on the delivery method you picked in step 2, a courier comes and brings you a package, or you visit the parcel locker 2-5 minutes from your home at a time that's convenient for you. - Repeat the process when the cheapass bulbs invariably all burn out within a year. At least in Europe, shopping on-line is a solved problem.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Hot take: A bit more totalitarianism is not a bad thing. Currently, mainly outside of the US, companies have too much of a free rein to do whatever they like - in Brazil and China it's even government mandated. Corporations destroy the environment while not paying their dues, and they need to be reined in. This does NOT directly affect the general population, which should be the most afraid of totalitarianism or a 'strong' / 'big' government. But the general population has a relatively small contribution to environmental destruction.
- hirundo 6y ago
  Maybe a bit more isn't terrible, but how do you limit it to a bit? History seems to describe that slope as slippery.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Currently, mainly outside of the US, companies have too much of a free rein to do whatever they like - in Brazil and China it's even government mandated. Huh? China is not known for its laissez-faire business environment, or for being uninterested in environmental quality. Reality is pretty much the exact opposite on both dimensions. And obviously there is no location in the world in which environmental destruction is mandated. You must have meant something else (?), but I can't figure out what it is.
- Verdex 6y ago
  Normally I don't get bent out of shape if someone makes their point with poorly chosen words. But seriously: > A bit more totalitarianism is not a bad thing. No, what you want is increased government effectiveness with respect to environmental responsibility. This can be achieved without totalitarianism AND IN FACT must be achieved without totalitarianism if it is to be effective at all. Can we stop or change a totalitarian government? Well, by definition no we can't. Only the totalitarian government can do that. If we have a totalitarian government that decides to protect the environment today, then we also have a totalitarian government that can decide to trash the environment completely tomorrow. And given how many assholes seem to like to grab for the reins of power within totalitarian governments, I don't like our chances of maintaining a benevolent, environmentally responsible totalitarian government for long enough for us to actually protect the environment. The global totalitarian government doesn't help the environment. We need global consensus that humanity would like to live on a non-garbage fire earth and then governments that are able to enact the will of the people. Anything else is going to quickly result in greater, long term environmental damage.
bigbillheck 6y ago
The existing situation hasn't exactly got a great track record of success.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Compared to what?
YorickPeterse 6y ago
There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment. It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  There is, as often its the cost of improving and saving our lives. The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us. Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.
- nlqp 6y ago
  It is totalitarian when the measures come at a time when it is convenient for large corporations to jump on the eko-bandwagon and entrench their positions against new competitors. I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.
- newsclues 6y ago
  What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - teachingassist 6y ago
WalterGR 6y ago
Scare quotes around "the environment"? Seriously?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  That doesn't indicate disbelief in the concept of the environment. It is a comment on the usage of the terms 'protection of the environment' / 'the environment' in the laws and advocacy that concern thepangolino. Similarly, if I characterized some legislation as being 'for "the children"', I would not be expressing disbelief in the concept of children. I would be expressing disbelief in the honesty of the description 'for the children'.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
logicchains 6y ago
>The legal actions undertaken to force climate legislation are setting a dangerous precedent that can be used by any other group wanting to force their own pieces of legislation through. It's not accidental. The sociopaths out there who want absolute power will use whatever excuse they find most convincing to get away with it.
TheCraiggers 6y ago
Where is the totalitarianism in the article? I get the feeling you think that totalitarianism is when the government does something you don't like, when actually it's when a dictator removes all power from the people. Until the Queen of England black bags you for driving your Hummer, we're a ways off. All this article is talking about is a government making laws to (hopefully) make everything better long-term. That's the entire point of governments.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "That's the entire point of governments." In theory, maybe. It seems most governments are full of people just wanting to hold onto power for themselves. They do what they want and don't truly care about the people or rule of law (ie nobody holds them accountable because the system looks out for itself).
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    And when the goals of the system occasionally align with the good of the people, then somebody comes out of the woodwork to cry "totalitarianism!". Or, even more silly, "this will entrench the incumbent companies, would somebody think of the upstarts?", like if market competition was the be-all, end-all of social development. It's a catch-22.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      If the existing company or companies are involved in antitrust activity, then they need to apply the antitrust laws. When the law is vague in its definitions, then I can see why someone might claim the government is totalitarian on that subject. The enforcement of ambiguous laws also goes against the principle of Lenity. The discretion for punishment and infractions are left solely to the government and is not based on explicit definitions of infractions created through the people or their elected representatives. This is especially important in this scenario since the representatives in the UN/international court are not elected by the people, removing power from the people. Definition from DDG. "the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government"
marsven_422 6y ago
I share your consern and I dare not express it where it can be traced back to me.
easytiger 6y ago
Much like the ludicrous overreaction to covid in the west
legulere 6y ago
Our economic system is totalitarian as it is based on the increasing extraction of resources without any regard of the externalities.
- titzer 6y ago
  We have this idea that ownership of land and natural resources is total. After I buy a patch of land, I can absolutely obliterate everything that lives there, on a whim. If I somehow manage to make money by doing that, people consider that moral, since hey, money is great for everyone, right!? Growth growth growth! Rabbits be damned. Suck it, frogs! Trees, you're mine! Oh, there's gold in them hills? Ah, a toxic sludge lake would go so nice right there. Welp, gold's finished. Time to sell of this hunk o junk and retire to the Carribean!
matheusmoreira 6y ago
Ironically these measures are being pushed by industrialized countries who no doubt cause far more destruction than we do either directly or indirectly. Developed world leaders speak of sanctioning Brazil over Amazon deforestation yet they maintain trade relations with China. I'd suggest they stop financing the highly destructive Chinese industries but I won't since I know their entire consumer goods economy would collapse.
titzer 6y ago
It's not totalitarian to throw kids out of the pool who keep peeing in it.

arkitaip 6y ago

What are these totalitarian measures you speak of?

nlqp 6y ago
Forbidding incandescent light bulbs while forcing inferior expensive replacements on consumers to prop up the light bulb cartel. All while you can burn 100l of petrol per day, no questions asked. Forbidding new construction sites lest the yellow speckled violet frog's breeding habits are disturbed in order to prop up the rental extraction by oligarchs.
- rozab 6y ago
  Why are incandescent light bulbs inferior, exactly?
  - nlqp 6y ago
    The comment says no such thing.
    - rozab 6y ago
      Ah, I meant to type the opposite
  - Narishma 6y ago
    They said the opposite.
- yladiz 6y ago
  Light bulb cartel lol. But seriously: it's not like it's a zero-sum game and it's disingenuous to pretend it is as it justifies inaction and not having small wins that can add up over time. Specifically about lightbulbs, reducing the energy use of lightbulbs across the board is a win, just like reducing the amount of petrol burned.
  - jand 6y ago
    @light bulb cartel: see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
    - ramphastidae 6y ago
      > The cartel ceased operations in 1939 owing to the outbreak of World War II.
      - Aerroon 6y ago
        But Planned Obsolescence didn't go anywhere. Nowadays it's all around us.
- qart 6y ago
  The cartels were for incandescent light bulbs [1], rather than other kinds of lighting. It's harder for cartels to exist now, given that we can buy alternatives from other countries on Ebay and AliExpress. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
  - nlqp 6y ago
    In Europe most bulbs in the stores are expensive Philips, Osram, etc. products. Ikea bulbs are rebranded and also expensive. You can buy on Ebay of course, but that is not what most consumers do. I don't consider it competition if all brick and mortar stores do the same.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Who buys bulbs in the stores when there's a hundred thousand small vendors on local e-commerce sites, selling super cheap LED bulbs imported straight from Shenzhen? (The race to the bottom in LED lighting is another environmental issue, though. The cheap bulbs I see people buy are mostly garbage that's barely fit for purpose, and in a sane world would not be allowed to leave the assembly floor.)
      - tap10 6y ago
        The average cost of buying something online, especially from China directly, is: - At least 1 hour of searching, market research, vetting the vendor (insofar that is possible at all). - Staying at home for multiple days when the delivery is expected, while frantically checking incorrect package trackers. - Alternatively, having the package delivered to the post office. Going there and waiting with 50 other people takes 2 hours. - If the vendor is dishonest or the package delivery fails, add another 4 hours at least. So the answer to your question is: Everyone who does not want to jump through these hoops or values their time.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        I talked about local vendors reselling things from China. Pretty much their entire value is in shielding the buyer from the inconveniences you listed. The real experience of a typical person I know is: - Go to your local eBay equivalent, look for LED lightbulbs, sort by price. - Pick the cheapest offer that doesn't look super-sketchy, place an order for half a dozen and pay for it, all with a few clicks. - Wait 2-5 days, depending on seasons and phase of the moon. - Depending on the delivery method you picked in step 2, a courier comes and brings you a package, or you visit the parcel locker 2-5 minutes from your home at a time that's convenient for you. - Repeat the process when the cheapass bulbs invariably all burn out within a year. At least in Europe, shopping on-line is a solved problem.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Hot take: A bit more totalitarianism is not a bad thing. Currently, mainly outside of the US, companies have too much of a free rein to do whatever they like - in Brazil and China it's even government mandated. Corporations destroy the environment while not paying their dues, and they need to be reined in. This does NOT directly affect the general population, which should be the most afraid of totalitarianism or a 'strong' / 'big' government. But the general population has a relatively small contribution to environmental destruction.

hirundo 6y ago
Maybe a bit more isn't terrible, but how do you limit it to a bit? History seems to describe that slope as slippery.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Currently, mainly outside of the US, companies have too much of a free rein to do whatever they like - in Brazil and China it's even government mandated. Huh? China is not known for its laissez-faire business environment, or for being uninterested in environmental quality. Reality is pretty much the exact opposite on both dimensions. And obviously there is no location in the world in which environmental destruction is mandated. You must have meant something else (?), but I can't figure out what it is.
Verdex 6y ago
Normally I don't get bent out of shape if someone makes their point with poorly chosen words. But seriously: > A bit more totalitarianism is not a bad thing. No, what you want is increased government effectiveness with respect to environmental responsibility. This can be achieved without totalitarianism AND IN FACT must be achieved without totalitarianism if it is to be effective at all. Can we stop or change a totalitarian government? Well, by definition no we can't. Only the totalitarian government can do that. If we have a totalitarian government that decides to protect the environment today, then we also have a totalitarian government that can decide to trash the environment completely tomorrow. And given how many assholes seem to like to grab for the reins of power within totalitarian governments, I don't like our chances of maintaining a benevolent, environmentally responsible totalitarian government for long enough for us to actually protect the environment. The global totalitarian government doesn't help the environment. We need global consensus that humanity would like to live on a non-garbage fire earth and then governments that are able to enact the will of the people. Anything else is going to quickly result in greater, long term environmental damage.

bigbillheck 6y ago

The existing situation hasn't exactly got a great track record of success.

akvadrako 6y ago
Compared to what?

YorickPeterse 6y ago

There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment. It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little.

ThomPete 6y ago
There is, as often its the cost of improving and saving our lives. The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us. Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.
nlqp 6y ago
It is totalitarian when the measures come at a time when it is convenient for large corporations to jump on the eko-bandwagon and entrench their positions against new competitors. I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.
newsclues 6y ago
What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- teachingassist 6y ago

WalterGR 6y ago

Scare quotes around "the environment"? Seriously?

thaumasiotes 6y ago
That doesn't indicate disbelief in the concept of the environment. It is a comment on the usage of the terms 'protection of the environment' / 'the environment' in the laws and advocacy that concern thepangolino. Similarly, if I characterized some legislation as being 'for "the children"', I would not be expressing disbelief in the concept of children. I would be expressing disbelief in the honesty of the description 'for the children'.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

logicchains 6y ago

>The legal actions undertaken to force climate legislation are setting a dangerous precedent that can be used by any other group wanting to force their own pieces of legislation through. It's not accidental. The sociopaths out there who want absolute power will use whatever excuse they find most convincing to get away with it.

TheCraiggers 6y ago

Where is the totalitarianism in the article? I get the feeling you think that totalitarianism is when the government does something you don't like, when actually it's when a dictator removes all power from the people. Until the Queen of England black bags you for driving your Hummer, we're a ways off. All this article is talking about is a government making laws to (hopefully) make everything better long-term. That's the entire point of governments.

giantg2 6y ago
"That's the entire point of governments." In theory, maybe. It seems most governments are full of people just wanting to hold onto power for themselves. They do what they want and don't truly care about the people or rule of law (ie nobody holds them accountable because the system looks out for itself).
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  And when the goals of the system occasionally align with the good of the people, then somebody comes out of the woodwork to cry "totalitarianism!". Or, even more silly, "this will entrench the incumbent companies, would somebody think of the upstarts?", like if market competition was the be-all, end-all of social development. It's a catch-22.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If the existing company or companies are involved in antitrust activity, then they need to apply the antitrust laws. When the law is vague in its definitions, then I can see why someone might claim the government is totalitarian on that subject. The enforcement of ambiguous laws also goes against the principle of Lenity. The discretion for punishment and infractions are left solely to the government and is not based on explicit definitions of infractions created through the people or their elected representatives. This is especially important in this scenario since the representatives in the UN/international court are not elected by the people, removing power from the people. Definition from DDG. "the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government"

marsven_422 6y ago

I share your consern and I dare not express it where it can be traced back to me.

easytiger 6y ago

Much like the ludicrous overreaction to covid in the west

legulere 6y ago

Our economic system is totalitarian as it is based on the increasing extraction of resources without any regard of the externalities.

titzer 6y ago
We have this idea that ownership of land and natural resources is total. After I buy a patch of land, I can absolutely obliterate everything that lives there, on a whim. If I somehow manage to make money by doing that, people consider that moral, since hey, money is great for everyone, right!? Growth growth growth! Rabbits be damned. Suck it, frogs! Trees, you're mine! Oh, there's gold in them hills? Ah, a toxic sludge lake would go so nice right there. Welp, gold's finished. Time to sell of this hunk o junk and retire to the Carribean!

matheusmoreira 6y ago

Ironically these measures are being pushed by industrialized countries who no doubt cause far more destruction than we do either directly or indirectly. Developed world leaders speak of sanctioning Brazil over Amazon deforestation yet they maintain trade relations with China. I'd suggest they stop financing the highly destructive Chinese industries but I won't since I know their entire consumer goods economy would collapse.

titzer 6y ago

It's not totalitarian to throw kids out of the pool who keep peeing in it.