3 ms·

The Argument for a Carbon Price

2 points by _Microft 5y ago

aww_dang 5y ago
Ultimately the carbon credit scheme isn't that different from the petro-dollar. A central authority issues it. Consumers must obtain it before using energy. The difference is the rationale and the issuer. In the past regime change against those who opposed the petrodollar system has been rationalized with a variety of justifications. The public accepted these with varying levels of belief. It isn't difficult to imagine governments being overthrown for "crimes against the earth" when they fail to kowtow to the carbon credit system. Whether you believe the oceans will boil or not, in this hypothetical the justifications for war will be relatively more coherent and self-consistent than the ones buttressing the petrodollar.
goatsneez 5y ago
Well written article with a single argument; it deserves a clean death for its conclusions are false, but it is well meaning. The weakest point is simply the post hoc fallacy and causal fallacy (attributing to CO2 reduction as a single variable system of global economics in which production [pollution] is outsourced and or mis-reported based on convenient definitions [looking at you Germany, but you are just one of them]). Apart from the logical fallacies, and a missing trade-off analysis (ie. biased argument) it is more than clear that CO2 tariffs are created with a primary agenda as an instrument of geo-political pressure and influence (any supposed justification related to actual CO2 reduction is a side-effects or even just useful convenience). The author only plays its role of an intellectual in the service of a state to justify its agenda (so this is not meant personally). Any writing which neglects the sole force field of how nation-states interact by their nature (e.g. the financial tools (WTO, IMF, WB) which are used for these goals (see Ha-Joon Chang's books), and neglects to address this aspect, is deluding itself. Governments cannot, by the law of physics (information theory) operate more efficiently than the market. Market has no ideology, no vested emotions married to an ideology [in the optical case of "complete" separation of State and private sector -- mixed economy only can lead to internal power struggles of vested interests which is known from about 300 BC). Coercion, the hallmark of value against which western world struggled is not an answer to improving anything, even less so on scale and multi-values global geo-economic-social system of the world. [Desrochers et al, 2020] ..concludes that the most promising path towards truly sustainable development lies in the unwavering pursuit of profitability within the bounds of well-defined and enforced private property rights.

2 points by _Microft 5y ago

Ultimately the carbon credit scheme isn't that different from the petro-dollar. A central authority issues it. Consumers must obtain it before using energy. The difference is the rationale and the issuer. In the past regime change against those who opposed the petrodollar system has been rationalized with a variety of justifications. The public accepted these with varying levels of belief. It isn't difficult to imagine governments being overthrown for "crimes against the earth" when they fail to kowtow to the carbon credit system. Whether you believe the oceans will boil or not, in this hypothetical the justifications for war will be relatively more coherent and self-consistent than the ones buttressing the petrodollar.

goatsneez 5y ago

Well written article with a single argument; it deserves a clean death for its conclusions are false, but it is well meaning. The weakest point is simply the post hoc fallacy and causal fallacy (attributing to CO2 reduction as a single variable system of global economics in which production [pollution] is outsourced and or mis-reported based on convenient definitions [looking at you Germany, but you are just one of them]). Apart from the logical fallacies, and a missing trade-off analysis (ie. biased argument) it is more than clear that CO2 tariffs are created with a primary agenda as an instrument of geo-political pressure and influence (any supposed justification related to actual CO2 reduction is a side-effects or even just useful convenience). The author only plays its role of an intellectual in the service of a state to justify its agenda (so this is not meant personally). Any writing which neglects the sole force field of how nation-states interact by their nature (e.g. the financial tools (WTO, IMF, WB) which are used for these goals (see Ha-Joon Chang's books), and neglects to address this aspect, is deluding itself. Governments cannot, by the law of physics (information theory) operate more efficiently than the market. Market has no ideology, no vested emotions married to an ideology [in the optical case of "complete" separation of State and private sector -- mixed economy only can lead to internal power struggles of vested interests which is known from about 300 BC). Coercion, the hallmark of value against which western world struggled is not an answer to improving anything, even less so on scale and multi-values global geo-economic-social system of the world. [Desrochers et al, 2020] ..concludes that the most promising path towards truly sustainable development lies in the unwavering pursuit of profitability within the bounds of well-defined and enforced private property rights.