3 ms·

That doesn't change the fact that carbon pricing depends on a grand top-down view of the economy - something you seemed to reject. Read more of that Wikipedia

That doesn't change the fact that carbon pricing depends on a grand top-down view of the economy - something you seemed to reject. Read more of that Wikipedia article, including "heavily criticized, particularly by anthropologists and historians": > Critical scholars note that although taken as a hypothetical example by Lloyd, the historical demise of the commons of Britain and Europe resulted not from misuse of long-held rights of usage by the commoners, but from the commons' owners enclosing and appropriating the land, abrogating the commoners' rights. as well as the criticism section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Critici... with: > Radical environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[189][190] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the "common resources" of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus and > Tragedy of the commons has served as a pretext for powerful private companies and/or governments to introduce regulatory agents or outsourcing on less powerful entities or governments, for the exploitation of their natural resources.

piaste 4y ago
Red herring. The tragedy of the commons is a parable that advocates neither capitalism nor socialism. It advocates the existence of a _responsible manager_ for any resource subject to exhaustion. Whether that manager should be a capitalist owner or a public entity is a separate question that comes in later. And of course, it is entirely irrelevant whether the events described really happened. The broken window fallacy doesn't refer to one particular window-breaking incident. Anyway, the concretization of the parable to the subject at hand is actually very straightforward: the atmosphere is the commons, and the carbon emitters are the commoners. Enclosures are an impossible solution this time, because we need to let the air to circulate freely. But the parable still teaches us the need for a single entity to be on charge of the atmosphere. National-level solutions - much less individual action - can only be a delaying tactic at best: the ozone layer was only saved by the Montreal Protocol. I'm old enough to remember public service messages encouraging the population to refrain from using unnecessary spray bottles, and that would have helped about as much as Dutch bikers help against global warming.

piaste 4y ago

Red herring. The tragedy of the commons is a parable that advocates neither capitalism nor socialism. It advocates the existence of a _responsible manager_ for any resource subject to exhaustion. Whether that manager should be a capitalist owner or a public entity is a separate question that comes in later. And of course, it is entirely irrelevant whether the events described really happened. The broken window fallacy doesn't refer to one particular window-breaking incident. Anyway, the concretization of the parable to the subject at hand is actually very straightforward: the atmosphere is the commons, and the carbon emitters are the commoners. Enclosures are an impossible solution this time, because we need to let the air to circulate freely. But the parable still teaches us the need for a single entity to be on charge of the atmosphere. National-level solutions - much less individual action - can only be a delaying tactic at best: the ozone layer was only saved by the Montreal Protocol. I'm old enough to remember public service messages encouraging the population to refrain from using unnecessary spray bottles, and that would have helped about as much as Dutch bikers help against global warming.