5 ms·

The USSR emitted plenty of carbon emissions, too. As did their satellite states: Poland was, and continues to be heavily reliant on coal. > the failure to dist

The USSR emitted plenty of carbon emissions, too. As did their satellite states: Poland was, and continues to be heavily reliant on coal. > the failure to distribute covid vaccines The fact that we even have COVID vaccines in such a short time is an amazing accomplishment. > mass hunger Capitalism has proven way more capable at avoiding famine than planned economics > mass homeless Homelessness in wealthy countries in an issue of drug addiction and mental health, not inability to build housing.

runarberg 4y ago
I am no supporter of the USSR nor of planned economies in general, but at no point were rulers in the communist party of the Soviet Union informed by their scientists of the effects of increased emissions, and then decided to double down on fossil fuel, and engage in a mass disinformation campaign to keep increasing pollution at the cost of our climate. I’m sure they would have, but they’re government collapsed before they were able, so, so far the climate crisis is a uniquely capitalist problem. As for Poland, it is thoroughly a capitalist country. All of the largest coal mining companies and energy companies there are publicly traded (although some, including PGE is majority [58%] owned by the state). It is safe to say that Poland’s continuing carbon emissions are more then happy to continue under a capitalist rule.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Most of Poland's energy infrastructure dates from the USSR days - energy grids don't just change on a dime. The point is: if industrialized countries, both capitalist and communist, emit greenhouse gases what's the rationale to point it out as a fault of the former?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > I am no supporter of the USSR nor of planned economies in general, but at no point were rulers in the communist party of the Soviet Union informed by their scientists of the effects of increased emissions, and then decided to double down on fossil fuel, What do you base this on? Greenhouse effect was scientifically established in the 1800s and evidence of CO2 induced global warming in the mid 1900s. The IPCC was set up in 1988. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. > and engage in a mass disinformation campaign to keep increasing pollution at the cost of our climate. I’m sure they would have, but they’re government collapsed before they were able, USSR may have have believed they would be a strategic winner in warming temperatures. At best they would not have been particularly inclined to sacrifice their energy and industrial development when their rivals were not. > so, so far the climate crisis is a uniquely capitalist problem. No it's not, even if you strangely ignore USSR's massive past contribution to atmospheric CO2. China emits more CO2 than all western countries combined, and plans to continue increasing output. You'll say China is capitalist to some degree, but its heavy industry, electricity generation, and fossil fuel industries (and more) are all under absolute control of the communist dictatorship. The climate crisis is your average every day human problem, formally documented in feudal England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) but certainly the same condition existed pre-history.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I feel like you are trying to put me in a gotcha. The IPCC published their first report on climate change in 1990, the Rio conference took place in 1992, and the first real UN climate deceleration wasn’t until 1997 with the Kyoto protocol (I say real because this is the one where government promised to limit their greenhouse emissions; and then proceeded to fail). So I say that even thought the climate crises starts with the industrial revolution, 1997 is the year we start seeing the climate failure that will doom us all. Just to state the obvious, if governments would have acted in 1997 like they promised to, then climate change probably wouldn’t have reached this catastrophic proportions which we are observing today. We had recently saved the ozone layer using similar measure, so there is no reason the Kyoto protocol failed other then the profit motive of fossil fuel companies which successfully lobbied against following through with the promises. The efforts of ignoring the Kyoto protocol were led by the USA which failed to ratify it. I believe there was significant lobbying involved from fossil fuel companies that influenced the senate’s decision to not even vote on it.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      It's not a gotcha if you can support your claim. You claimed something that clearly isn't supported by the history of those events. Soviet scientists and officials certainly would have known about the link between fossil fuel usage and global warming, and obviously seen it at odds with their drive to expand their economy and production just as their rivals did. Bringing capitalism into it is just silly. "Capitalism" is not to blame, removing capitalism does not fix it, and people don't need to give up capitalism to improve global warming. It seems to be bringing an unrelated personal bias against capitalism in and tying it to global warming, which is really anti-scientific misinformation.
      - runarberg 4y ago
        We are arguing in alternative history here, which is never going to be a fruitful conversation. My statements was about fossil fuel companies internal scientists discovering the link, which resulted in them thinking only about their shareholders’ profits when it came time to react. You have no proof a similar situation ever happened inside the soviet union. Off course there were scientists within the soviet union which knew about the link, and even some that realized the scale of the human impact before the political collapse. But stating how the soviet leadership would have acted in the wake of the Kyoto protocol is pure fiction that has nothing to do with the world we live in. Communists certainly contributed to the climate disaster, and continue to do so today, but by the time push came to shove, and we were set up to enact the essential international agreements to prevent it becoming a disaster, it were capitalist countries, and capitalist countries alone, that resisted.
kgermino 4y ago
> Homelessness in wealthy countries in an issue of drug addiction and mental health, not inability to build housing I’d argue homelessness is heavily tied to an inability to build housing, but that’s a regulatory failure (zoning and building codes) not a market one.

runarberg 4y ago

I am no supporter of the USSR nor of planned economies in general, but at no point were rulers in the communist party of the Soviet Union informed by their scientists of the effects of increased emissions, and then decided to double down on fossil fuel, and engage in a mass disinformation campaign to keep increasing pollution at the cost of our climate. I’m sure they would have, but they’re government collapsed before they were able, so, so far the climate crisis is a uniquely capitalist problem. As for Poland, it is thoroughly a capitalist country. All of the largest coal mining companies and energy companies there are publicly traded (although some, including PGE is majority [58%] owned by the state). It is safe to say that Poland’s continuing carbon emissions are more then happy to continue under a capitalist rule.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Most of Poland's energy infrastructure dates from the USSR days - energy grids don't just change on a dime. The point is: if industrialized countries, both capitalist and communist, emit greenhouse gases what's the rationale to point it out as a fault of the former?
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> I am no supporter of the USSR nor of planned economies in general, but at no point were rulers in the communist party of the Soviet Union informed by their scientists of the effects of increased emissions, and then decided to double down on fossil fuel, What do you base this on? Greenhouse effect was scientifically established in the 1800s and evidence of CO2 induced global warming in the mid 1900s. The IPCC was set up in 1988. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. > and engage in a mass disinformation campaign to keep increasing pollution at the cost of our climate. I’m sure they would have, but they’re government collapsed before they were able, USSR may have have believed they would be a strategic winner in warming temperatures. At best they would not have been particularly inclined to sacrifice their energy and industrial development when their rivals were not. > so, so far the climate crisis is a uniquely capitalist problem. No it's not, even if you strangely ignore USSR's massive past contribution to atmospheric CO2. China emits more CO2 than all western countries combined, and plans to continue increasing output. You'll say China is capitalist to some degree, but its heavy industry, electricity generation, and fossil fuel industries (and more) are all under absolute control of the communist dictatorship. The climate crisis is your average every day human problem, formally documented in feudal England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) but certainly the same condition existed pre-history.
- runarberg 4y ago
  I feel like you are trying to put me in a gotcha. The IPCC published their first report on climate change in 1990, the Rio conference took place in 1992, and the first real UN climate deceleration wasn’t until 1997 with the Kyoto protocol (I say real because this is the one where government promised to limit their greenhouse emissions; and then proceeded to fail). So I say that even thought the climate crises starts with the industrial revolution, 1997 is the year we start seeing the climate failure that will doom us all. Just to state the obvious, if governments would have acted in 1997 like they promised to, then climate change probably wouldn’t have reached this catastrophic proportions which we are observing today. We had recently saved the ozone layer using similar measure, so there is no reason the Kyoto protocol failed other then the profit motive of fossil fuel companies which successfully lobbied against following through with the promises. The efforts of ignoring the Kyoto protocol were led by the USA which failed to ratify it. I believe there was significant lobbying involved from fossil fuel companies that influenced the senate’s decision to not even vote on it.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    It's not a gotcha if you can support your claim. You claimed something that clearly isn't supported by the history of those events. Soviet scientists and officials certainly would have known about the link between fossil fuel usage and global warming, and obviously seen it at odds with their drive to expand their economy and production just as their rivals did. Bringing capitalism into it is just silly. "Capitalism" is not to blame, removing capitalism does not fix it, and people don't need to give up capitalism to improve global warming. It seems to be bringing an unrelated personal bias against capitalism in and tying it to global warming, which is really anti-scientific misinformation.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      We are arguing in alternative history here, which is never going to be a fruitful conversation. My statements was about fossil fuel companies internal scientists discovering the link, which resulted in them thinking only about their shareholders’ profits when it came time to react. You have no proof a similar situation ever happened inside the soviet union. Off course there were scientists within the soviet union which knew about the link, and even some that realized the scale of the human impact before the political collapse. But stating how the soviet leadership would have acted in the wake of the Kyoto protocol is pure fiction that has nothing to do with the world we live in. Communists certainly contributed to the climate disaster, and continue to do so today, but by the time push came to shove, and we were set up to enact the essential international agreements to prevent it becoming a disaster, it were capitalist countries, and capitalist countries alone, that resisted.

kgermino 4y ago

> Homelessness in wealthy countries in an issue of drug addiction and mental health, not inability to build housing I’d argue homelessness is heavily tied to an inability to build housing, but that’s a regulatory failure (zoning and building codes) not a market one.