5 ms·

Obviously not true. People have known about climate change for many decades. Every countries media discusses it regularly. Scientists have published countless t

by ryan93 5y ago

Obviously not true. People have known about climate change for many decades. Every countries media discusses it regularly. Scientists have published countless thousands of open papers about it. You act like we just found out about global warming last week

throwaway894345 5y ago
Of course we both know that it's insufficient that the media and science discuss it if huge swaths of the population distrust those institutions or if they get large amounts of conflicting information via their social networks. > You act like we just found out about global warming last week Humanity isn't a borg mind. Just because science has been increasing its understanding of climate change for decades doesn't mean that the average citizen possesses a climate scientist's understanding. And the carbon industries have worked hard to ensure that laypeople and especially politicians misunderstand.
- ryan93 5y ago
  I actually think everyone understands that dealing with climate change means increasing energy costs substantially. Oil companies wasted money on lobbying. Human nature would have given us the same result
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I've never met anyone who could estimate with any degree of certainty how much a given climate policy (e.g., a $15/ton tax on carbon with border adjustments) would affect a given product or service (not even gasoline, which is a straightforward derivative of oil) because supply chains are so opaque. No doubt there are economists and other academics who try to get in the right ballpark, but even then the error margins are enormous and economists account for a minuscule share of voters. > Human nature would have given us the same result Lobbying is human nature. Human nature already gave us this result. Banding together to overcome special interests is also human nature. Everything we do is human nature, so this isn't very meaningful. The meaningful question is whether or not we might have implemented carbon pricing by now were it not for corporate lobbying and disinformation campaigns, and I'm thoroughly convinced that the answer is "yes".
    - ryan93 5y ago
      Supply chains aren’t opaque. Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. Flights go up, food prices go up. Gasoline shoots up.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > Supply chains aren’t opaque. So what's the carbon footprint of an XBox Series X? What about a 20 oz bottle of Trader Joe's brand extra virgin olive oil? If this information isn't readily available to consumers, it's "opaque" for all intents and purposes. > Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. You give politicians far too much credit. > Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. So cut a check to everyone making less than, say, $400K (or subsidize things if that's your kink). Perfectly feasible with carbon pricing. Moreover, after a while corporations will find greener ways to reduce costs. If you're a conservative or libertarian, welcome to the free market.
        ryan93 5y ago
        Wrong every politician knows massive carbon taxes will be ultimately borne by consumers. What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        How can you argue this with a straight face? There are already many carbon pricing proposals which factor in a means-tested distribution of dividends, so clearly some politicians understand that it’s workable. > What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country This is a remarkable misunderstanding of carbon pricing. It’s not limited to domestic oil and gas production, nor are the dividends intended to reimburse 100% of anyone’s tax obligation. The dividends only offset the burden imposed by the tax. Further still, a border adjustment will bring a lot of production back to the US because polluting countries like China will no longer be able to compete as effectively. More importantly, if we don’t pass a climate tax, we’ll have a lot bigger problem than a burden on the consumer.

by ryan93 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

Of course we both know that it's insufficient that the media and science discuss it if huge swaths of the population distrust those institutions or if they get large amounts of conflicting information via their social networks. > You act like we just found out about global warming last week Humanity isn't a borg mind. Just because science has been increasing its understanding of climate change for decades doesn't mean that the average citizen possesses a climate scientist's understanding. And the carbon industries have worked hard to ensure that laypeople and especially politicians misunderstand.

ryan93 5y ago
I actually think everyone understands that dealing with climate change means increasing energy costs substantially. Oil companies wasted money on lobbying. Human nature would have given us the same result
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I've never met anyone who could estimate with any degree of certainty how much a given climate policy (e.g., a $15/ton tax on carbon with border adjustments) would affect a given product or service (not even gasoline, which is a straightforward derivative of oil) because supply chains are so opaque. No doubt there are economists and other academics who try to get in the right ballpark, but even then the error margins are enormous and economists account for a minuscule share of voters. > Human nature would have given us the same result Lobbying is human nature. Human nature already gave us this result. Banding together to overcome special interests is also human nature. Everything we do is human nature, so this isn't very meaningful. The meaningful question is whether or not we might have implemented carbon pricing by now were it not for corporate lobbying and disinformation campaigns, and I'm thoroughly convinced that the answer is "yes".
  - ryan93 5y ago
    Supply chains aren’t opaque. Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. Flights go up, food prices go up. Gasoline shoots up.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Supply chains aren’t opaque. So what's the carbon footprint of an XBox Series X? What about a 20 oz bottle of Trader Joe's brand extra virgin olive oil? If this information isn't readily available to consumers, it's "opaque" for all intents and purposes. > Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. You give politicians far too much credit. > Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. So cut a check to everyone making less than, say, $400K (or subsidize things if that's your kink). Perfectly feasible with carbon pricing. Moreover, after a while corporations will find greener ways to reduce costs. If you're a conservative or libertarian, welcome to the free market.
      - ryan93 5y ago
        Wrong every politician knows massive carbon taxes will be ultimately borne by consumers. What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        How can you argue this with a straight face? There are already many carbon pricing proposals which factor in a means-tested distribution of dividends, so clearly some politicians understand that it’s workable. > What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country This is a remarkable misunderstanding of carbon pricing. It’s not limited to domestic oil and gas production, nor are the dividends intended to reimburse 100% of anyone’s tax obligation. The dividends only offset the burden imposed by the tax. Further still, a border adjustment will bring a lot of production back to the US because polluting countries like China will no longer be able to compete as effectively. More importantly, if we don’t pass a climate tax, we’ll have a lot bigger problem than a burden on the consumer.