5 ms·
As capitalist you should recognise that permissible emission as a capital, not pay. Of course you could distribute that capital by free market optimisation. Bu
by CuriousSkeptic 4y ago
As capitalist you should recognise that permissible emission as a capital, not pay.
Of course you could distribute that capital by free market optimisation. But before there can be buyers there must be sellers. Who has the first claim of those permissible emissions?
- eastbound 4y agoEmissions are so close to how much you spend. Don’t fly but spend the airfare money on Chinese toys: Same carbon emitted. So having the right to emit n teq = having the right to spend m money. So emissions are a flux and emission permits are capital, you are right, but it’s just a philosophical argumenation, like photons are both a particle and a wave, and real estate is both capital and a currency. Maybe your question was, how do we impose others to not emit carbon, how do we set up the first emission permits. Well that’s hard. But it doesn’t matter - They should have a price and change hands when someone can afford them.
- CuriousSkeptic 4y agoI was alluding to the geo-libertarian position that the ”fair” distribution or ”land”(in the economical sense) is fully compatible with capitalism, and not necessarily communism.