3 ms·

From the point of view of someone living in central Europe, I disagree. The only story that matters right now is Russia waging a war against the Ukraine and pre

by lytefm 4y ago

From the point of view of someone living in central Europe, I disagree. The only story that matters right now is Russia waging a war against the Ukraine and preparing to attack Europe once they get a realistic chance. If the US weakens the NATO after the next election, we're f*cked. Also, I don't buy the "let poor people suffer now to reduce suffering later" narrative. Restricting the access to fossil fuels increases the prices for pretty much everything that's relevant to cover basic needs, especially in less developed countries. But I'd be very fine with putting a hefty carbon emission based price tag on anything that exceeds covering basic needs - e.g. flying, cruise ships, driving big cars, using more energy to heat a pool than other families need for their whole household,...

cableshaft 4y ago
I would agree that there are two stories that matter, the invasion by Russia being the other, in part because we won't have to worry about extinction by climate change if nuclear winter happens before that. Also unfortunately, as the world becomes more and more scarce with its resources (seafood, freshwater, topsoil, fertilizer, usable sand, etc) we're probably only going to see more of these wars in the next couple of decades, even if this one is resolved without nukes or a World War. I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. There needs to be drastic reduction in consumption of resources happening, and it should have started at least fifty years ago. It's like asking someone who's had a heart attack to not start getting a handle on their health because you don't want them to suffer any hardships right now. I'm saying this as someone who is struggling to get my own health back on track myself and had heart attack scares a few times (thankfully not an actual heart attack yet, just very convincing heartburn)...it's definitely difficult, but I can and should be doing more. Like I should be doing more to reduce my consumption of resources as well. I've done some for both, but nowhere near enough or fast enough. That being said, I don't want people to die from lack of heat or anything either. I also think the governments of the world should be doing a lot to ease the burden without just making fossil fuels cheap again, restructuring our society so we will naturally need to consume less resources (more communal places to stay for the days when it's extremely cold with no stigma attached to it, massive funding projects to convert homes away from natural gas heating, etc).
- lytefm 4y ago
  > I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. I'm fine with "a bit" of suffering or inconvenience. Implementing a carbon tax on anything beyond basic needs in rich countries would be an option for that. Pressuring developing countries to not burn coal without offering providing a better alternative wouldn't. That would be equivalent to "a lot of suffering".
afpx 4y ago
Is Russia really a threat to Europe? From over here, it seems like they're struggling as it is. Or, do you mean after they control all of Ukraine's exports, Europe will buckle?
- lytefm 4y ago
  Currently, it's not an immediate military threat - mainly thanks to deterrence by NATO and the US. But let's see how the situation develops in the next years. If the US withdraws troups and weakens NATO, e.g. because Trump get reelected, and if political instability increases in Europe because people aren't able make a living anymore, Russia will for sure take advantage of that situation.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
A smarter way than manually picking "worthy" and "unworthy" emissions to tax is to tax them all, including basic needs, and distribute the proceeds from that (or a fraction of them) to everyone equally. Those who consume less will receive back more than they spent on the basic necessities, and you don't get into envy- and activism-based debates where everyone tries to hurt their favorite sinners.

by lytefm 4y ago

cableshaft 4y ago

I would agree that there are two stories that matter, the invasion by Russia being the other, in part because we won't have to worry about extinction by climate change if nuclear winter happens before that. Also unfortunately, as the world becomes more and more scarce with its resources (seafood, freshwater, topsoil, fertilizer, usable sand, etc) we're probably only going to see more of these wars in the next couple of decades, even if this one is resolved without nukes or a World War. I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. There needs to be drastic reduction in consumption of resources happening, and it should have started at least fifty years ago. It's like asking someone who's had a heart attack to not start getting a handle on their health because you don't want them to suffer any hardships right now. I'm saying this as someone who is struggling to get my own health back on track myself and had heart attack scares a few times (thankfully not an actual heart attack yet, just very convincing heartburn)...it's definitely difficult, but I can and should be doing more. Like I should be doing more to reduce my consumption of resources as well. I've done some for both, but nowhere near enough or fast enough. That being said, I don't want people to die from lack of heat or anything either. I also think the governments of the world should be doing a lot to ease the burden without just making fossil fuels cheap again, restructuring our society so we will naturally need to consume less resources (more communal places to stay for the days when it's extremely cold with no stigma attached to it, massive funding projects to convert homes away from natural gas heating, etc).

lytefm 4y ago
> I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. I'm fine with "a bit" of suffering or inconvenience. Implementing a carbon tax on anything beyond basic needs in rich countries would be an option for that. Pressuring developing countries to not burn coal without offering providing a better alternative wouldn't. That would be equivalent to "a lot of suffering".

afpx 4y ago

Is Russia really a threat to Europe? From over here, it seems like they're struggling as it is. Or, do you mean after they control all of Ukraine's exports, Europe will buckle?

lytefm 4y ago
Currently, it's not an immediate military threat - mainly thanks to deterrence by NATO and the US. But let's see how the situation develops in the next years. If the US withdraws troups and weakens NATO, e.g. because Trump get reelected, and if political instability increases in Europe because people aren't able make a living anymore, Russia will for sure take advantage of that situation.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago

A smarter way than manually picking "worthy" and "unworthy" emissions to tax is to tax them all, including basic needs, and distribute the proceeds from that (or a fraction of them) to everyone equally. Those who consume less will receive back more than they spent on the basic necessities, and you don't get into envy- and activism-based debates where everyone tries to hurt their favorite sinners.