3 ms·

Externalities are the activists’ favorite technical-sounding economic concept because they introduce a fudge factor into every single economic process that can

Externalities are the activists’ favorite technical-sounding economic concept because they introduce a fudge factor into every single economic process that can be abused to support almost any conclusion. The article essentially claims that nearly all major industries would be unprofitable is forced to pay their externalities. Great! Let’s shut it all down, let everyone gradually die off and then we’ll finally reach the sustainable utopia these people seek.

junofan 3y ago
Climate activists would be better off developing a compelling vision. Look at how much progress Tesla has made by offering cars that people actually want. Nobody wants to live in the world envisioned by climate activists. That is why activists have made no progress in the last 50 years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- moshun 3y ago
  Your comment ignores that these industries, corporations and governments driving climate change for profit have gone to extreme lengths to make sure activists make no progress that would affect earnings. It’s also a strange argument to make that activists need to convince you that drinking contaminated water, breathing polluted air and ruining the natural world for profit isn’t a sustainable vision for the future. Activists aren’t trying to sell you a product they are trying to warn you. Holding them to the showmanship antics of any given CEO seems misguided.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  - Hello I am a firefighter, did you know your house is on fire - OK but what's your vision for this issue - I'm going to spray water on it, also you should stand farther away - Aren't you just being reflexively contrarian?
- drewm1980 3y ago
  Tesla's cars (and private automobiles in general) are not a compelling vision, they're toys for rich people. I looked it up. About a million Teslas have ever been manufactured. Round the population to a power of 10... 10 billion people. So one human in 10k gets a Tesla. The main thing most climate activists that I talk to want is for billions of people to not have to die off due to resource mismanagement. People don't believe that it's even possible for our civilization to collapse, even though entire civilizations have collapsed numerous times over the course of history. This is not a world we're envisioning, is a world we're ~visioning. With our eyeballs.
  - njarboe 3y ago
    Tesla produced about 1.3 million cars just last year (2022)[1]. It has been successfully meeting its goal of an annual production rate increase of 50% per year for around a decade and is on track to continue this until they reach their goal of producing 20 million cars annually in 2030. The outcome is uncertain but the track record is there. This plus fusion power gives a much different vision of the future. The world you envision depends where you are looking. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/tesla-tsla-q4-2022-vehicle-delivery-and-production-numbers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/tesla-tsla-q4-2022-vehicle-d...
thrawa8387336 3y ago
Was just reading a magazine from Columbia (uni). They showcase research claiming 40% of CO2 emitted in NYC is absorbed by Central Park and its green areas. Lmao, obviously this caused some cognitive dissonance in the writers as immediately they claim but that does not mean we should stop climate change efforts. The article had religious controvers vibes I swear. 40% with a ridiculously small amount of green areas. If that's the case, we'll, then, every CO2 emission is easily absorbed by the rest of the green areas in the world.
- junofan 3y ago
  It’s a temperance movement. We need real solutions.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    If by "real solutions" you mean "anything that allows us to keep emitting as much CO2 as we want" there might not be any. And you might be right, and we might be boned.
- asdfgionion 3y ago
  Which is why we see rock steady concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have been keeping records for seventy years now and have seen no increase in atmospheric CO2 whatsoever. It is the tree-huggers who have their heads in the sand, not you. (Less sarcastically, please share the source of your claims. Obviously they're wrong, but I'd like to know how they're wrong.)
deeviant 3y ago
So is your point that externalities are non-existent, or is that even if they do exist they are irrelevant because jobs trump everything else, including the future existence of the human race?
- jkhdigital 3y ago
  There is no rigorous, objective methodology to account for externalities. It’s a bit like the ideal thermodynamic “closed system” which cannot actually be realized—it is simply not possible to draw a clean line between the various costs of economic activity and assign them to responsible parties because the economic activity itself is embedded in a cyclical environment. My point is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can arrive at “rational” decisions about resource use by reducing everything to accounting.
  - ordu 3y ago
    > My point is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can arrive at “rational” decisions about resource use by reducing everything to accounting. Have you any idea what should replace rational decisions and reducing everything to accounting? I cannot imagine what the other way may be, but I would like to know.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    What you are saying is ultimately that market economies fail because of the economic calculation problem...
drewcoo 3y ago
> Externalities are the activists’ favorite technical-sounding economic concept because they introduce a fudge factor into every single economic process that can be abused to support almost any conclusion. Citation needed. Yes, they're a favorite. But I always thought that it was because economic models are usually simple, closed systems and that's a trivial, approachable way to show that they're wrong. Similar to finding "bugs" with provably correct functional code. Wherever it touches the real world, it's no longer simple math and something hinky's bound to happen.
drewm1980 3y ago
You're being sarcastic, but it sounds like you agree with the authors about the situation we're in, and the desirability of building the sustainable utopia ~before we're forced to shut down our civilization and die off.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
You reject the premise because the implications are scary?
anigbrowl 3y ago
There's a whole body of economic literature by figures like Pigou and Coase on the definition, valuation, and allocation of externalities, as well as a mass of legal analysis. Perhaps you should consult that before dismissing it as 'technical sounding economic concept.'
xboxnolifes 3y ago
The conclusion isn't that all industries would be unprofitable if they ignored externalities. The conclusion is that they are unprofitable as they are currently designed. In the face of a actually having to price in externalities, entire industries may end up with fundamental changes.
imtringued 3y ago
Externalities imply economic inefficiency. That some goods will be supplied in greater quantities than optimal or less quantities than optimal. You can't derive much more from externalities. Most externality models aren't complex functions that try to start from some conclusion and try to create an inverse function of the conclusion to support the conclusion. They are often just a simple linear cost model. For example carbon taxes are just a constant price with a transition period to allow adjustments over time. It doesn't get simpler than that. Even the more complicated land value tax often just is a constant percentage of the land value (85%). The question is what the land value is but even then it is often just using some average prices based on recent transactions with small, less than 100% adjustment factors depending on local factors. The model complexity again is constrained and does not allow infinite complexity. The conclusions you can draw from a land value tax don't go beyond the money the government spends on maintaining and building new infrastructure.

junofan 3y ago

Climate activists would be better off developing a compelling vision. Look at how much progress Tesla has made by offering cars that people actually want. Nobody wants to live in the world envisioned by climate activists. That is why activists have made no progress in the last 50 years.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
moshun 3y ago
Your comment ignores that these industries, corporations and governments driving climate change for profit have gone to extreme lengths to make sure activists make no progress that would affect earnings. It’s also a strange argument to make that activists need to convince you that drinking contaminated water, breathing polluted air and ruining the natural world for profit isn’t a sustainable vision for the future. Activists aren’t trying to sell you a product they are trying to warn you. Holding them to the showmanship antics of any given CEO seems misguided.
anigbrowl 3y ago
- Hello I am a firefighter, did you know your house is on fire - OK but what's your vision for this issue - I'm going to spray water on it, also you should stand farther away - Aren't you just being reflexively contrarian?
drewm1980 3y ago
Tesla's cars (and private automobiles in general) are not a compelling vision, they're toys for rich people. I looked it up. About a million Teslas have ever been manufactured. Round the population to a power of 10... 10 billion people. So one human in 10k gets a Tesla. The main thing most climate activists that I talk to want is for billions of people to not have to die off due to resource mismanagement. People don't believe that it's even possible for our civilization to collapse, even though entire civilizations have collapsed numerous times over the course of history. This is not a world we're envisioning, is a world we're ~visioning. With our eyeballs.
- njarboe 3y ago
  Tesla produced about 1.3 million cars just last year (2022)[1]. It has been successfully meeting its goal of an annual production rate increase of 50% per year for around a decade and is on track to continue this until they reach their goal of producing 20 million cars annually in 2030. The outcome is uncertain but the track record is there. This plus fusion power gives a much different vision of the future. The world you envision depends where you are looking. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/tesla-tsla-q4-2022-vehicle-delivery-and-production-numbers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/tesla-tsla-q4-2022-vehicle-d...

thrawa8387336 3y ago

Was just reading a magazine from Columbia (uni). They showcase research claiming 40% of CO2 emitted in NYC is absorbed by Central Park and its green areas. Lmao, obviously this caused some cognitive dissonance in the writers as immediately they claim but that does not mean we should stop climate change efforts. The article had religious controvers vibes I swear. 40% with a ridiculously small amount of green areas. If that's the case, we'll, then, every CO2 emission is easily absorbed by the rest of the green areas in the world.

junofan 3y ago
It’s a temperance movement. We need real solutions.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  If by "real solutions" you mean "anything that allows us to keep emitting as much CO2 as we want" there might not be any. And you might be right, and we might be boned.
asdfgionion 3y ago
Which is why we see rock steady concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have been keeping records for seventy years now and have seen no increase in atmospheric CO2 whatsoever. It is the tree-huggers who have their heads in the sand, not you. (Less sarcastically, please share the source of your claims. Obviously they're wrong, but I'd like to know how they're wrong.)

deeviant 3y ago

So is your point that externalities are non-existent, or is that even if they do exist they are irrelevant because jobs trump everything else, including the future existence of the human race?

jkhdigital 3y ago
There is no rigorous, objective methodology to account for externalities. It’s a bit like the ideal thermodynamic “closed system” which cannot actually be realized—it is simply not possible to draw a clean line between the various costs of economic activity and assign them to responsible parties because the economic activity itself is embedded in a cyclical environment. My point is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can arrive at “rational” decisions about resource use by reducing everything to accounting.
- ordu 3y ago
  > My point is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can arrive at “rational” decisions about resource use by reducing everything to accounting. Have you any idea what should replace rational decisions and reducing everything to accounting? I cannot imagine what the other way may be, but I would like to know.
- imtringued 3y ago
  What you are saying is ultimately that market economies fail because of the economic calculation problem...

drewcoo 3y ago

> Externalities are the activists’ favorite technical-sounding economic concept because they introduce a fudge factor into every single economic process that can be abused to support almost any conclusion. Citation needed. Yes, they're a favorite. But I always thought that it was because economic models are usually simple, closed systems and that's a trivial, approachable way to show that they're wrong. Similar to finding "bugs" with provably correct functional code. Wherever it touches the real world, it's no longer simple math and something hinky's bound to happen.

drewm1980 3y ago

You're being sarcastic, but it sounds like you agree with the authors about the situation we're in, and the desirability of building the sustainable utopia ~before we're forced to shut down our civilization and die off.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

You reject the premise because the implications are scary?

anigbrowl 3y ago

There's a whole body of economic literature by figures like Pigou and Coase on the definition, valuation, and allocation of externalities, as well as a mass of legal analysis. Perhaps you should consult that before dismissing it as 'technical sounding economic concept.'

xboxnolifes 3y ago

The conclusion isn't that all industries would be unprofitable if they ignored externalities. The conclusion is that they are unprofitable as they are currently designed. In the face of a actually having to price in externalities, entire industries may end up with fundamental changes.

imtringued 3y ago

Externalities imply economic inefficiency. That some goods will be supplied in greater quantities than optimal or less quantities than optimal. You can't derive much more from externalities. Most externality models aren't complex functions that try to start from some conclusion and try to create an inverse function of the conclusion to support the conclusion. They are often just a simple linear cost model. For example carbon taxes are just a constant price with a transition period to allow adjustments over time. It doesn't get simpler than that. Even the more complicated land value tax often just is a constant percentage of the land value (85%). The question is what the land value is but even then it is often just using some average prices based on recent transactions with small, less than 100% adjustment factors depending on local factors. The model complexity again is constrained and does not allow infinite complexity. The conclusions you can draw from a land value tax don't go beyond the money the government spends on maintaining and building new infrastructure.