9 ms·

“It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.” I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I gu

by redm 5y ago

“It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.” I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. YC itself is designed to start businesses. Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. I think what you need more of is incentives to drive innovation in the areas where government wants to push businesses and taxes and/or more regulation in areas government is trying to avoid. Businesses will always follow the money.

camgunz 5y ago
> I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" industry--has corrupted democratic governments for their own profit, at the expense of literally every human alive now and for the foreseeable future. > Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. Businesses are not a vehicle for people. They are not democracies. They are the opposite of a commune. If they were democracies, we'd have a direct way to hold them accountable and control their behavior. We obviously don't have that. > I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. Pick any counterargument you like here: 1. Only kooks are talking about things like degrowth. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Of course plans will include business and economic interests. The question is what is prioritized, and that's why I said: > It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating. 2. The only way this works is by forcing markets to factor in externalities like atmospheric carbon production (or waste, etc.) into their pricing, which we've clearly failed to do.
kqr 5y ago
Because "business" has been ignoring external costs at an unprecedented scale for decades, and that's what's gotten us into this mess to begin with. Of course, you could argue that business wouldn't do this if people didn't demand it, which is true. But I'm much more comfortable with regulating business than people's desires.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > But I'm much more comfortable with regulating business than people's desires What's the difference?
  - kqr 5y ago
    Businesses provide the means to the ends people desire. At heart, people (in general) don't desire leaded gasoline. People desire smooth engine operation. There's nothing wrong with that desire. Companies see that desire and substitute a solution that seem cheap only because the costs are external: leaded gasoline. That is a problematic means to an innocent end. This is how business in general operates: it sees an innocent desire, comes up with a concrete solution, and sometimes that solution has great external costs attached to it, but business proceeds to ignore that. In all of that process, the external costs are very rarely attached to the desire, and almost always specific to the solution provided by the business.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    People have their own interests at heart, and of those they care about (their family, friends, community, city, region, country...). Corporations are interested in their bottom line, and keeping their large shareholders happy.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      So what do you do when the interests of the people are driving cars, building highways and suburbs, and buying cheap, disposable plastics instead and other things? Are we regulating "business" or "people" when we ban plastic straws when the people want plastic straws and the business is providing them because we want them? I guess I'm just not sure in this instances I see a meaningful difference. I'm not saying we shouldn't take action and that businesses should be responsible, but it seems like we're saying that we'll just regulate the business and that the people are like somehow hopeless and unable to take action. People can do things like not use plastic bags, turn the A/C off, and buy locally made products that are more expensive (just examples). If you care about your community or country why wouldn't you be doing these things? Maybe people don't care about anything except their bottom line too? Idk. So here's a regulation we could play with - you can't buy any produce that is grown outside of 50 miles of where you live. Now what? Who are we regulating?
jahnu 5y ago
Business interests as they are currently structured are the big bad wolf and justifiably so. Left unchecked they would wreak havoc. Nobody is saying business per se is bad.
enraged_camel 5y ago
>> Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. To some extent, sure, but we have gotten into a nasty habit of allowing businesses to privatize profits while socializing losses. And the losses have been absolutely massive.
andrepd 5y ago
> Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. It would, if it weren't for the core feature (and problem) of Capitalism: the disconnect between those who work and those who own. As it stands there are people with power so disproportional that to talk of democracy or a "common interest" is simply disingenuous. In this case in particular: the interests of a few people to maximise their own profits trump the interests of the entire public to have clean air, not suffer from 100,000s of deaths per year due to pollution, not have to endure climate change and the catastrophically expensive cleanup processes we'll have to implement sooner or later (i.e. they save 1$ now so we'll have to spend 10$ in a few decades), etc.
splistud 5y ago
No. It's way easier to set completely unrealizable goals (that your proponents think are compromise because they are completely out of touch with what is actually possible) then blame 'business' when they don't get met.
- camgunz 5y ago
  > they are completely out of touch with what is actually possible I think it's the opposite, actually. It's like we're trying to find solutions to this and I'm like, "well, what if much of Texas just had a power outage for weeks during the coldest part of the year; sure some people would die but we'd save a lot of carbon emissions". You'd rightly balk and say "that is INSANE". And then climate change would do it to us anyway. So it seems to me that the ones who are "out of touch with what is actually possible" are the climate change skeptics and the incrementalists. How can you ignore what's already happening?
delegate 5y ago
> Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. None of these good things are beneficial to the environment or climate. 'Economic activity' done by businesses is the main driver of climate change.

by redm 5y ago

camgunz 5y ago

> I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" industry--has corrupted democratic governments for their own profit, at the expense of literally every human alive now and for the foreseeable future. > Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. Businesses are not a vehicle for people. They are not democracies. They are the opposite of a commune. If they were democracies, we'd have a direct way to hold them accountable and control their behavior. We obviously don't have that. > I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. Pick any counterargument you like here: 1. Only kooks are talking about things like degrowth. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Of course plans will include business and economic interests. The question is what is prioritized, and that's why I said: > It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating. 2. The only way this works is by forcing markets to factor in externalities like atmospheric carbon production (or waste, etc.) into their pricing, which we've clearly failed to do.

kqr 5y ago

Because "business" has been ignoring external costs at an unprecedented scale for decades, and that's what's gotten us into this mess to begin with. Of course, you could argue that business wouldn't do this if people didn't demand it, which is true. But I'm much more comfortable with regulating business than people's desires.

ericmay 5y ago
> But I'm much more comfortable with regulating business than people's desires What's the difference?
- kqr 5y ago
  Businesses provide the means to the ends people desire. At heart, people (in general) don't desire leaded gasoline. People desire smooth engine operation. There's nothing wrong with that desire. Companies see that desire and substitute a solution that seem cheap only because the costs are external: leaded gasoline. That is a problematic means to an innocent end. This is how business in general operates: it sees an innocent desire, comes up with a concrete solution, and sometimes that solution has great external costs attached to it, but business proceeds to ignore that. In all of that process, the external costs are very rarely attached to the desire, and almost always specific to the solution provided by the business.
- GordonS 5y ago
  People have their own interests at heart, and of those they care about (their family, friends, community, city, region, country...). Corporations are interested in their bottom line, and keeping their large shareholders happy.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    So what do you do when the interests of the people are driving cars, building highways and suburbs, and buying cheap, disposable plastics instead and other things? Are we regulating "business" or "people" when we ban plastic straws when the people want plastic straws and the business is providing them because we want them? I guess I'm just not sure in this instances I see a meaningful difference. I'm not saying we shouldn't take action and that businesses should be responsible, but it seems like we're saying that we'll just regulate the business and that the people are like somehow hopeless and unable to take action. People can do things like not use plastic bags, turn the A/C off, and buy locally made products that are more expensive (just examples). If you care about your community or country why wouldn't you be doing these things? Maybe people don't care about anything except their bottom line too? Idk. So here's a regulation we could play with - you can't buy any produce that is grown outside of 50 miles of where you live. Now what? Who are we regulating?

jahnu 5y ago

Business interests as they are currently structured are the big bad wolf and justifiably so. Left unchecked they would wreak havoc. Nobody is saying business per se is bad.

enraged_camel 5y ago

>> Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. To some extent, sure, but we have gotten into a nasty habit of allowing businesses to privatize profits while socializing losses. And the losses have been absolutely massive.

andrepd 5y ago

> Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. It would, if it weren't for the core feature (and problem) of Capitalism: the disconnect between those who work and those who own. As it stands there are people with power so disproportional that to talk of democracy or a "common interest" is simply disingenuous. In this case in particular: the interests of a few people to maximise their own profits trump the interests of the entire public to have clean air, not suffer from 100,000s of deaths per year due to pollution, not have to endure climate change and the catastrophically expensive cleanup processes we'll have to implement sooner or later (i.e. they save 1$ now so we'll have to spend 10$ in a few decades), etc.

splistud 5y ago

No. It's way easier to set completely unrealizable goals (that your proponents think are compromise because they are completely out of touch with what is actually possible) then blame 'business' when they don't get met.

camgunz 5y ago
> they are completely out of touch with what is actually possible I think it's the opposite, actually. It's like we're trying to find solutions to this and I'm like, "well, what if much of Texas just had a power outage for weeks during the coldest part of the year; sure some people would die but we'd save a lot of carbon emissions". You'd rightly balk and say "that is INSANE". And then climate change would do it to us anyway. So it seems to me that the ones who are "out of touch with what is actually possible" are the climate change skeptics and the incrementalists. How can you ignore what's already happening?

delegate 5y ago

> Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. None of these good things are beneficial to the environment or climate. 'Economic activity' done by businesses is the main driver of climate change.