3 ms·

Geoengineering climate change has been making some people very rich at the expense of everyone else. In order to stop or reverse it, the incentives need to chan

Geoengineering climate change has been making some people very rich at the expense of everyone else. In order to stop or reverse it, the incentives need to change. To stop digging the hole: -- Implement a carbon tax that is significant enough to change behavior. Also give tax credits for holding land in a natural state to encourage reforestation & other habitat restoration. Either that or implement a Georgist single-tax policy to close the loop on externalized costs to the commons that never get addressed. -- Get rid of farm subsidies so people pay more for foods that are more resource intensive to produce. Similarly, review other subsidies for environmental impact. -- Impose environmental restrictions on the worst polluters on the planet: The US military. I'm sure they have a national security argument for all the wasteful and polluting things they do, but they need to rethink some of their positions. You can't protect something by destroying it. Climate change has national security implications. Why should I support some of these experimental schemes that could have possibly unforseen (or more likely downplayed) consequences, like termination shock, when we haven't done anything to change the systems that have put us in this situation?

telotortium 3y ago
Won't work. Climate change mitigation is like international relations in general - any solutions have to be feasible in a state of international anarchy (i.e., no central regulator). Strong powers like the US can sometimes influence or pressure other nations on issues like this. However, the US's power and influence is on the decline. They might have been able to do this in the 1990s, but that was too early for solar panels, good batteries, and other technology that really let us think about a carbon-free future in earnest (a special fuck you to the environmental activists that scuttled nuclear). There's a reason everyone was eager to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 - with the US not part of it, no one had to worry about enforcement, so it was cheap virtue signaling. Now, the US has blown its moral and military credibility with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. Ukraine isn't quite the disaster of those yet - mostly because people largely accept that Russia performed a preemptive invasion and Ukraine obviously wants to fight - but the US and its allies blew their one chance to do large-scale sanction warfare with the dollar, and Russia is still not out of the war. So any decarbonization now has to happen strictly out of each country's self-interest. We are blessed in that renewable energy looks like it's going to be cost effective (albeit not enough for people to shut down existing fossil fuel plants, just to avoid building new ones) - the US and its allies don't make up a large enough portion of world consumption for their decarbonization to be enough, even if they could eliminate emissions from non-energy sources, which are substantial.
- mcdonje 3y ago
  The US could take on the policies I suggested without international cooperation, and it would make an enormous impact. I don't understand why you're acting like this hinges on the US's ability to influence other nations as if the US isn't a major world leader in carbon emissions. BTW, anti-nuclear energy "environmental activists" were funded by the fossil fuel industry.
iinnPP 3y ago
--So kill some of the poor people?-- This is the reality of what will happen from a tax on getting to work and fueling your body to provide work. Solutions that involve taxing always disproportionately hurt the poor and do nothing to curb poor behavior of people who are well off. Unless we are taxing as a percentage of income? Let's go with that. All unneeded polution is taxed and the money goes to reversal of the problem. So: - You buy a car that fits more people than what exist in your family (1% per seat per year). Other metrics for weight of vehicle/mileage/EV status/gas useage over the year as well. - Your garbage collection is limited to 5 bags a year and each additional bag is 0.1% - Not understanding how to recycle is 0.01% per item needing to be sorted correctly. - Electricity usage is taxed after a certain kWh is reached on a yearly basis @ 0.02% per kWh. Etc. The problem is that everyone thinks it isn't their problem. The solutions people produce never negatively impact themselves. Including mine above. Though I already practice what I preach. Exception being that the limits above are more forgiving than the ones I impose on myself. My tax would be near zero, if not zero or negative perhaps, given the above framework.
- mcdonje 3y ago
  Taxes can be progressive or regressive. That's orthogonal to my point. Climate change disproportionately hurts the poor. Not sure why you just assume I'm against the poor when nothing I suggested is inherently harmful to poor people. I also walk the talk. I made significant lifestyle changes because I care about the environment. More people would do the same if the incentives were aligned and we didn't just rely on peoples' intentions.

telotortium 3y ago

Won't work. Climate change mitigation is like international relations in general - any solutions have to be feasible in a state of international anarchy (i.e., no central regulator). Strong powers like the US can sometimes influence or pressure other nations on issues like this. However, the US's power and influence is on the decline. They might have been able to do this in the 1990s, but that was too early for solar panels, good batteries, and other technology that really let us think about a carbon-free future in earnest (a special fuck you to the environmental activists that scuttled nuclear). There's a reason everyone was eager to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 - with the US not part of it, no one had to worry about enforcement, so it was cheap virtue signaling. Now, the US has blown its moral and military credibility with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. Ukraine isn't quite the disaster of those yet - mostly because people largely accept that Russia performed a preemptive invasion and Ukraine obviously wants to fight - but the US and its allies blew their one chance to do large-scale sanction warfare with the dollar, and Russia is still not out of the war. So any decarbonization now has to happen strictly out of each country's self-interest. We are blessed in that renewable energy looks like it's going to be cost effective (albeit not enough for people to shut down existing fossil fuel plants, just to avoid building new ones) - the US and its allies don't make up a large enough portion of world consumption for their decarbonization to be enough, even if they could eliminate emissions from non-energy sources, which are substantial.

mcdonje 3y ago
The US could take on the policies I suggested without international cooperation, and it would make an enormous impact. I don't understand why you're acting like this hinges on the US's ability to influence other nations as if the US isn't a major world leader in carbon emissions. BTW, anti-nuclear energy "environmental activists" were funded by the fossil fuel industry.

iinnPP 3y ago

--So kill some of the poor people?-- This is the reality of what will happen from a tax on getting to work and fueling your body to provide work. Solutions that involve taxing always disproportionately hurt the poor and do nothing to curb poor behavior of people who are well off. Unless we are taxing as a percentage of income? Let's go with that. All unneeded polution is taxed and the money goes to reversal of the problem. So: - You buy a car that fits more people than what exist in your family (1% per seat per year). Other metrics for weight of vehicle/mileage/EV status/gas useage over the year as well. - Your garbage collection is limited to 5 bags a year and each additional bag is 0.1% - Not understanding how to recycle is 0.01% per item needing to be sorted correctly. - Electricity usage is taxed after a certain kWh is reached on a yearly basis @ 0.02% per kWh. Etc. The problem is that everyone thinks it isn't their problem. The solutions people produce never negatively impact themselves. Including mine above. Though I already practice what I preach. Exception being that the limits above are more forgiving than the ones I impose on myself. My tax would be near zero, if not zero or negative perhaps, given the above framework.

mcdonje 3y ago
Taxes can be progressive or regressive. That's orthogonal to my point. Climate change disproportionately hurts the poor. Not sure why you just assume I'm against the poor when nothing I suggested is inherently harmful to poor people. I also walk the talk. I made significant lifestyle changes because I care about the environment. More people would do the same if the incentives were aligned and we didn't just rely on peoples' intentions.