5 ms·

Interesting aspect I wasnt aware of. What could a positive externality of e.g. co2 emission be? What of "fun" hobby noise? Do you have other examples? It would

Interesting aspect I wasnt aware of. What could a positive externality of e.g. co2 emission be? What of "fun" hobby noise? Do you have other examples? It wouldnt work to make a net calculation with its costs?

ThomPete 4y ago
First of all CO2 is plant feed and the world is 14% greener today. But even if we were to say CO2 was purely bad that's missing the point. Burning Fossile fuel isn't just producing CO2 it's also allowing us to create fertilizers that keep 3B people alive, it's allowing us to produce cement, steel and plastic all of them the foundation of modern civilisation. Many of us wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for that. On top of that it's what allow us to have machine do heavy work instead of humans, freeing more people up to do other things than working in the fields, which among other things gave us the internet which we are currently using, or many types of medicine, hell you can can't even do wind and solar without using fossil fuels. So if we want to start counting externalities lets do that. But let do it fairly and it should be pretty clear that the positive externalities far outweigh the negative ones, which is why it's 80% of our energy consumption to this day.
- go_elmo 4y ago
  Your text is overly emotional instead of being what I asked for. Its about numbers. The positive things have a value X, the negatives (that so long no one has to pay för) also, lets call it Y. If X > Y so be it, but limit the Profit at |X-Y|. Its not anyones decision what X and Y are, but facts that can be empiricaly derived. I dont care how many uses substance Z has, I only care about Y not being dispersed without liability, which happens today. If Y is too high, the Market shall regulate itself and will provide alternatives.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThomPete 4y ago
    I already explained why the positive outweigh the negative. But there is a simple experiment you can do. List all the things you can't live without. List if they are possible without CO2 For those that aren't list if it's possible with current technologies, and current economics and current knowledge to create alternatives that are matching. You will quickly realize you can't do that unless you are contempt with living like natives in some far remote jungle or with inferior or much more expensive solutions ( which then create its own set of externalities)

ThomPete 4y ago

First of all CO2 is plant feed and the world is 14% greener today. But even if we were to say CO2 was purely bad that's missing the point. Burning Fossile fuel isn't just producing CO2 it's also allowing us to create fertilizers that keep 3B people alive, it's allowing us to produce cement, steel and plastic all of them the foundation of modern civilisation. Many of us wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for that. On top of that it's what allow us to have machine do heavy work instead of humans, freeing more people up to do other things than working in the fields, which among other things gave us the internet which we are currently using, or many types of medicine, hell you can can't even do wind and solar without using fossil fuels. So if we want to start counting externalities lets do that. But let do it fairly and it should be pretty clear that the positive externalities far outweigh the negative ones, which is why it's 80% of our energy consumption to this day.

go_elmo 4y ago
Your text is overly emotional instead of being what I asked for. Its about numbers. The positive things have a value X, the negatives (that so long no one has to pay för) also, lets call it Y. If X > Y so be it, but limit the Profit at |X-Y|. Its not anyones decision what X and Y are, but facts that can be empiricaly derived. I dont care how many uses substance Z has, I only care about Y not being dispersed without liability, which happens today. If Y is too high, the Market shall regulate itself and will provide alternatives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ThomPete 4y ago
  I already explained why the positive outweigh the negative. But there is a simple experiment you can do. List all the things you can't live without. List if they are possible without CO2 For those that aren't list if it's possible with current technologies, and current economics and current knowledge to create alternatives that are matching. You will quickly realize you can't do that unless you are contempt with living like natives in some far remote jungle or with inferior or much more expensive solutions ( which then create its own set of externalities)