8 ms·

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rai

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rail against capitalism and free markets (which every successful country from Denmark to Australia uses) the less likely we'll ever be to solve any problems. The market is an unwieldy force that can be generally shaped in a direction by the people (purchasing decisions, sacrificing convenience) and the government (regulation, law, market fairness) to massively solve problems through innovation, technology, and other means. Ignoring the market, or restricting its capabilities leaves us with little to no tools to combat problems. The much greater problem than "capitalist tendencies" is solving for people who absolutely refuse to modify their lifestyles (I must have my SUV and drive it comfortably and quickly to Costco on the 5 lane highway) to which market forces simply respond to, and who deny that humans are having a substantial effect on the global climate and would rather elect charlatans than people of substance. On the other hand, we're trapped in a prisoner's dilemma with the very countries you mention. It's a very bad situation we face, but I find that blaming capitalism or markets for failures of government to be counter-productive and in some ways actively hostile to working on addressing climate change.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I really can't find any substance in this argument. You're just saying "capitalism isn't the problem, it's the solution!" without offering anything that would convince someone who doesn't already believe that.
zb1plus 4y ago
I actually think capitalism and free markets are the most viable solution. The problem is "short-sighted" capitalism that focuses on quarterly "hand to mouth" profits as opposed to people seeing the long-term business opportunities that lie in pivoting to renewables. As much as I detest Elon Musk, I think making the eco-friendly option cool and desirable for reasons beyond environmental impact is one of the best ways to encourage growth towards a more eco-friendly society.
- klyrs 4y ago
  BEVs aren't the eco-friendly option. Density, biking, walking, and mass transit are. Those still aren't "cool." Musk made a feel-good option profitable for himself. And don't even get me started on rocket fuel.
wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Capitalism only responds to market prices, and right now the true cost of carbon is not priced in. This is where government can help. We should have a large, painful, but revenue neutral carbon tax that replaces income tax. Then you sit back and watch as people cut their carbon emissions to 'dodge taxes', exactly as designed.
benj111 4y ago
So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? Because currently capitalism has no interest in emissions because they don't cost anything. But that is a failure of capitalism, or at least our current incarnation of it. And it needs fixing to be part of the solution. You could blame government for not fixing the flaw, but the flaw is in capitalism none the less.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? I think carbon pricing is a great idea from what I've learned about it. Though, I disagree with you that the lack of carbon pricing is the fault of capitalism and I feel like you are kind of making that argument by saying that emissions don't cost anything so how would a market account for something with no price? I place that blame solely on governments for that.
  - benj111 4y ago
    1. I wouldn't say that capitalism, at its core is a government construct. 2.capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. Now the government could (and should) step in to fix that failure. Their failure to step in is a different failure, the root failure is with capitalism, the governments failure is a failure to step in and fix it. It's like if my house catches on fire and the fire service turns up without any hoses. That is a failure of the fire service. If this becomes a widespread problem and the fire service shows it isn't capable of fixing itself then the govt should step in to fix it. But any failure by the govt to step in is a failure of oversight not of failing to put my fire out.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I don't know what you mean by construct, but capitalism is an economic system that is regulated and enabled by the government because in order to own private property either you have to defend it yourself or you have the government set rules and act as the enforcement mechanism. Capitalism is one type of economic system that operates with the blessing of the government but there are others. Soviet Russia is an example of a different type of economic system. Capitalism couldn't flourish there because the government decided to not allow it to exist. > capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. I think you are confusing a market pricing mechanic which is a feature of capitalism with the core tenet of capitalism which is the existence of the private ownership of the means of production. > There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. For me the blame will always go to the government (and people) for failure to regulate because a market in a capitalist economy cannot value something that isn't being bought or sold. You point this out yourself by saying "capitalism is about valuing things...". The value is either 0 (until global warming starts getting nasty) or undiscovered. Nobody is buying or selling carbon (so far), so there's nothing for market economies to do with it. That's part of why a carbon tax in my mind seems like a great idea because we can introduce a pricing mechanic into a market economy and then allow efficient allocation of resources.
greenhearth 4y ago
Baudrillard wrote a while ago that "capital has never been linked by a contract to the society it dominates." It follows no social contract and is not at any moral obligation. He goes on to explain that asking it to follow some rules is laughable and absurd.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  This was also Marx's argument, of the "don't blame the player, blame the game," ilk.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

I really can't find any substance in this argument. You're just saying "capitalism isn't the problem, it's the solution!" without offering anything that would convince someone who doesn't already believe that.

zb1plus 4y ago

I actually think capitalism and free markets are the most viable solution. The problem is "short-sighted" capitalism that focuses on quarterly "hand to mouth" profits as opposed to people seeing the long-term business opportunities that lie in pivoting to renewables. As much as I detest Elon Musk, I think making the eco-friendly option cool and desirable for reasons beyond environmental impact is one of the best ways to encourage growth towards a more eco-friendly society.

klyrs 4y ago
BEVs aren't the eco-friendly option. Density, biking, walking, and mass transit are. Those still aren't "cool." Musk made a feel-good option profitable for himself. And don't even get me started on rocket fuel.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

Capitalism only responds to market prices, and right now the true cost of carbon is not priced in. This is where government can help. We should have a large, painful, but revenue neutral carbon tax that replaces income tax. Then you sit back and watch as people cut their carbon emissions to 'dodge taxes', exactly as designed.

benj111 4y ago

So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? Because currently capitalism has no interest in emissions because they don't cost anything. But that is a failure of capitalism, or at least our current incarnation of it. And it needs fixing to be part of the solution. You could blame government for not fixing the flaw, but the flaw is in capitalism none the less.

ericmay 4y ago
> So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? I think carbon pricing is a great idea from what I've learned about it. Though, I disagree with you that the lack of carbon pricing is the fault of capitalism and I feel like you are kind of making that argument by saying that emissions don't cost anything so how would a market account for something with no price? I place that blame solely on governments for that.
- benj111 4y ago
  1. I wouldn't say that capitalism, at its core is a government construct. 2.capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. Now the government could (and should) step in to fix that failure. Their failure to step in is a different failure, the root failure is with capitalism, the governments failure is a failure to step in and fix it. It's like if my house catches on fire and the fire service turns up without any hoses. That is a failure of the fire service. If this becomes a widespread problem and the fire service shows it isn't capable of fixing itself then the govt should step in to fix it. But any failure by the govt to step in is a failure of oversight not of failing to put my fire out.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I don't know what you mean by construct, but capitalism is an economic system that is regulated and enabled by the government because in order to own private property either you have to defend it yourself or you have the government set rules and act as the enforcement mechanism. Capitalism is one type of economic system that operates with the blessing of the government but there are others. Soviet Russia is an example of a different type of economic system. Capitalism couldn't flourish there because the government decided to not allow it to exist. > capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. I think you are confusing a market pricing mechanic which is a feature of capitalism with the core tenet of capitalism which is the existence of the private ownership of the means of production. > There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. For me the blame will always go to the government (and people) for failure to regulate because a market in a capitalist economy cannot value something that isn't being bought or sold. You point this out yourself by saying "capitalism is about valuing things...". The value is either 0 (until global warming starts getting nasty) or undiscovered. Nobody is buying or selling carbon (so far), so there's nothing for market economies to do with it. That's part of why a carbon tax in my mind seems like a great idea because we can introduce a pricing mechanic into a market economy and then allow efficient allocation of resources.

greenhearth 4y ago

Baudrillard wrote a while ago that "capital has never been linked by a contract to the society it dominates." It follows no social contract and is not at any moral obligation. He goes on to explain that asking it to follow some rules is laughable and absurd.

Nomentatus 4y ago
This was also Marx's argument, of the "don't blame the player, blame the game," ilk.