5 ms·

> "draft legislation [...] directs the Treasury Department and the Environmental Protection Agency to identify the companies that released the most greenhouse g

by ethbr0 5y ago

> "draft legislation [...] directs the Treasury Department and the Environmental Protection Agency to identify the companies that released the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from 2000 to 2019 and assess a fee based on the amounts they emitted Seems pretty reasonable to retroactively tax previously untaxed externalities. By 2000, the science was pretty conclusive. If fossil fuel companies' reaction was full-steam-ahead, they deserve what they get. That said, the revenue generated should definitely be used to fund climate mitigation and backstop unfunded insurance shortfalls. I.e. costs directly caused by the profits made. Also, cited in article as an example of work to base such a decision off of, Climate Accountability's "Carbon Majors Report": https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors.html https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors.html (attempts to quantify emissions by company)

engineer_22 5y ago
To play devil's advocate, you could make a similar counter argument. By 2000, the science was pretty conclusive. If coastal city builders' reaction was full-steam-ahead, they deserve what they get. IMO this kind of legislation isn't serious. It's a political stunt to grab headlines.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Coastal city building has a heck of a larger web of at-fault parties and rights issues in play. For starters: oil companies understood climate change was linked to greenhouse gas emissions (because their own experts told them so, and they funded counter-arguments). They made profits on something that generated ~12 gigatons of emissions. Those profits are directly related to (a) something they wilfully did and (b) that they knew would cause harm. In coastal building, who's the analogous party that fulfills those criteria? The homebuyer? The developer? The local zoning board?
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    To play devil's advocate again: These companies were providing goods and services demanded by US civil society, industry, and military. Surely US citizens and the US Government enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive fossil energy. Are they also not culpable?
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Morally? Yes. Practically? No. Artificially cheap fossil fuels and active lobbying retarded earlier development of alternative energy sources. Which meant there was no energy alternative for those customers to buy. Which ultimately unfolds into the "How much is the fossil fuel industry responsible for taking actions to protect itself and increase its profits?" debate. And while that's certainly a question with a lot of valid answers, the answer definitely isn't "not at all."
- loopz 5y ago
  The immediate problem is not sea-level rise, which will take hundreds of years for largest impacts [0]. Ocean acidification is already happening [1], and threaten ocean life. "When pteropod shells were placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100, the shells slowly dissolved after 45 days. ... The last time the ocean pH was this low was during the middle Miocene, 14-17 million years ago. The Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction event was occurring." [2]. Also as oceans warm, CO2 absorption go down: "As the oceans warm, they will become less and less capable of taking up carbon dioxide. As a result, more of our carbon pollution will stay in the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming" [3]. [0] https://earthsky.org/earth/anticipating-future-sea-level-projections/ https://earthsky.org/earth/anticipating-future-sea-level-pro... [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/ocean-acidification-today-and-future https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/ocean-... [2] https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co... [3] http://www.lteconomy.it/en/articles-en/articoli/the-power-of-oceans-how-much-co2-are-they-able-to-absorb-2 http://www.lteconomy.it/en/articles-en/articoli/the-power-of... Phew! That was just the oceans, for starters!
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Point. People underappreciate how big of a flywheel the ocean is, because it's generally worked "the same" in our recorded history (with regards to climate). But once it gets going on a feedback loop, you get very serious effects (of magnitudes that dominate any human mitigation) very quickly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by ethbr0 5y ago

engineer_22 5y ago

To play devil's advocate, you could make a similar counter argument. By 2000, the science was pretty conclusive. If coastal city builders' reaction was full-steam-ahead, they deserve what they get. IMO this kind of legislation isn't serious. It's a political stunt to grab headlines.

ethbr0 5y ago
Coastal city building has a heck of a larger web of at-fault parties and rights issues in play. For starters: oil companies understood climate change was linked to greenhouse gas emissions (because their own experts told them so, and they funded counter-arguments). They made profits on something that generated ~12 gigatons of emissions. Those profits are directly related to (a) something they wilfully did and (b) that they knew would cause harm. In coastal building, who's the analogous party that fulfills those criteria? The homebuyer? The developer? The local zoning board?
- engineer_22 5y ago
  To play devil's advocate again: These companies were providing goods and services demanded by US civil society, industry, and military. Surely US citizens and the US Government enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive fossil energy. Are they also not culpable?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Morally? Yes. Practically? No. Artificially cheap fossil fuels and active lobbying retarded earlier development of alternative energy sources. Which meant there was no energy alternative for those customers to buy. Which ultimately unfolds into the "How much is the fossil fuel industry responsible for taking actions to protect itself and increase its profits?" debate. And while that's certainly a question with a lot of valid answers, the answer definitely isn't "not at all."
loopz 5y ago
The immediate problem is not sea-level rise, which will take hundreds of years for largest impacts [0]. Ocean acidification is already happening [1], and threaten ocean life. "When pteropod shells were placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100, the shells slowly dissolved after 45 days. ... The last time the ocean pH was this low was during the middle Miocene, 14-17 million years ago. The Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction event was occurring." [2]. Also as oceans warm, CO2 absorption go down: "As the oceans warm, they will become less and less capable of taking up carbon dioxide. As a result, more of our carbon pollution will stay in the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming" [3]. [0] https://earthsky.org/earth/anticipating-future-sea-level-projections/ https://earthsky.org/earth/anticipating-future-sea-level-pro... [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/ocean-acidification-today-and-future https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/ocean-... [2] https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co... [3] http://www.lteconomy.it/en/articles-en/articoli/the-power-of-oceans-how-much-co2-are-they-able-to-absorb-2 http://www.lteconomy.it/en/articles-en/articoli/the-power-of... Phew! That was just the oceans, for starters!
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Point. People underappreciate how big of a flywheel the ocean is, because it's generally worked "the same" in our recorded history (with regards to climate). But once it gets going on a feedback loop, you get very serious effects (of magnitudes that dominate any human mitigation) very quickly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]