6 ms·
One question is missing : "what if we had to pay for our environmental footprint" ? Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortu
by wiz21c 4y ago
One question is missing : "what if we had to pay for our environmental footprint" ?
Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortunately, a pretty extreme questions for those it should be asked to.
- throwaway82388 4y agoPlenty of think tanks and NGOs are on it. Google “personal carbon quota”
- ThrowAgain 4y agoIs it? EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint, and GCP launched carbon calculator https://cloud.google.com/carbon-footprint https://cloud.google.com/carbon-footprint. Sure, noone asks this in explicit way but given current trends it feels like we are going in this direction very fast.
- pelasaco 4y agowell, EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint and normally the solution is to send the carbon footprint overseas, then the national problem is solved.
- cube2222 4y agoThis is actually being changed and was discussed here on HN[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33833017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33833017
- CrazyStat 4y agoHave they fixed the wood burning loophole, where you can burn overseas wood without recognizing any carbon emissions because the carbon accounting places the emissions at the place where the wood was harvested? >In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process and avoid double counting, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned. >The EU adopted this methodology in its Renewable Energy Directive, allowing energy companies to burn biomass produced in the US without having to report the emissions. >The accounting method– which was never intended to assign national responsibility for carbon emissions, according to climate experts has created a lot of discussion and disagreement among advocates, scientists and policymakers. But ultimately it is not the accounting of carbon that is the problem, it's the emissions. >"It doesn't change the physical reality." said Tim Searchinger, senior research scholar at Princeton University. "A law designed to reduce emissions that in reality encourages an increase in emissions... has to be flawed," he said, referring to Europe's directive. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...
- illys 4y agoI don't think wood-burning is a real emission issue since wood growing/burning is a carbon-cycle and not a fossil taken in the ground and injected forever in the atmosphere... As long as the wood is coming from tree plantations, not from deforestation of course, which I expect to be mostly the case in North America and Europe.
- CrazyStat 4y agoEven if the forest is replanted and eventually stores the same amount of carbon as was released in burning the wood you end up behind. You release a bunch of carbon today and it takes decades for the new growth to recapture that. Plus you burn additional fuel for the harvest, processing, and shipping, which is never recaptured. Burning and replanting forests is not carbon neutral. Not even close. It's an accounting gimmick that the EU uses to make themselves look good.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y agoGoing one step further. "How do we meaningfully calculate the total life cost of products? " Externalities, clean up costs etc are currently not being charged which makes some products economically viable when they probably shouldn't be. For example in China Coal plants keep getting opened, because despite a cheaper lifetime cost for solar, coal has a much lower upfront cost and without meaningful costs for environmental damage well you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you. (There is more to it, but thats the simplified version of it). Same with single use plastics. They are really cheap to make, but what about cleaning them up, recycling them etc. Without counting that cost, yeah manufacturing plastic is extremely cheap compared to like a well made pottery plate. But in 50 years the clay plate is still around and the plastic one is just microplastics in the ocean forever.
- worldsayshi 4y agoI don't doubt the part about environment costs but: >you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you Why wouldn't this be accounted for in the selling price (unless you scam the buyer)?
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y agoYou can always sell it at the current price, but with further environmental commitments by country the price of operating or closing a plant will probably only go up. But due to the hypothetical nature of those new environmental regulations they are probably not considered during the buyout process. But the current trend would point towards their cost only going up, and no regulation making fossil fuel plants any cheaper to run or decomission.
- runnerup 4y agoThe highest bidder will generally always be making the most favorable assumptions of the future, some of which will turn out to be wrong.
- nathias 4y agoenviromental effects are just one aspect of externalities, if you had to pay all of them, I wonder how many businesses would be left
- diordiderot 4y agoThe ones that deserve to be?
- latexr 4y agoYour comment made me think of a New Yorker cartoon¹: > “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.” ¹ https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- themitigating 4y agoI would ask "When is it justified to put the environment over human life?"
- pelasaco 4y agoBut it brings another questions with it: Do we need to provide Welfare to everyone at any cost?
- themitigating 4y agoYes, why not?
- pelasaco 4y agoI'm surprising you asking it here if in another comment you wrote "Humans don't have to live"[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316128
- pjc50 4y agoCan you really separate those, given that humans have to live in the environment?
- gernb 4y agoyes you can. Because it will likely be decades before the environment kills people but you can save a life today. Oh, don't drive that ambulance to go pick someone up and rescue them, it pollutes! Where as other solutions may exist for the environment in the future. Here's another. Maybe no one should go hiking/camping/mountain climbing because the few that need to be rescued generally require cars/helicopters the burn fossil fuels to come to their aid, not to mention all the fossil fuels used to get them to their camp/hike/climb site and all the materials for their gear, all for "entertainment". Also, you yourself are likely a net negative on the environment. Do you have an obligation to kill yourself?
- pnf 4y agoA business asking this question without a corollary question about how to recoup the cost somehow (e.g., through market access, product positioning, brand value, or subsidies) is shooting themselves in the foot. Additional questions: Who is computing our environmental footprint? Are our interests aligned? Do our competitors also have to pay it? Is it computed the same for them? What is the penalty if we refuse to pay? Do loopholes exist and will they be exploited by our competition? Do tax programs already exist at a national level that go towards paying this footprint? Does such a cost necessitate operating above certain economies of scale to be in business at all? If we do business internationally, will we pay different costs in different jurisdictions? Is our footprint a net-bad thing or is our product a net-good whose footprint should be subsidized but isn't? The question is likely one that many business will have to answer (whether they ask it or not) given the regulatory and financial controls being implemented by supranational governance.