6 ms·

Why would future price increases for all your goods be inspiring for young people? That's what you're going to end up with when you increase costs. People don't

Why would future price increases for all your goods be inspiring for young people? That's what you're going to end up with when you increase costs. People don't choose fossil fuels just because, they're chosen largely for economic reasons.

ordinaryradical 3y ago
“Won’t someone think of the costs!” You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too. Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  Much easier to ignore the externalities if you know you will be dead by the time the bill comes due. Until them, more widgets for me!
_Algernon_ 3y ago
If including economic externalities in the price makes goods more expensive, so be it. It's how things should be done.
hypertele-Xii 3y ago
Lower prices themselves have a price. You could steal everything for free, why don't you?
lame-robot-hoax 3y ago
Carbon externalities not being reflected in the price of a good is a bug, not a feature. It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Sure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this? What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline? I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes. People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).
  - Aachen 3y ago
    Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme poverty to 10%, despite going from 2 to 8 billion inhabitants) I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
    - worik 3y ago
      > maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Very unhelpful Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody We must be kind, to make things better
    - asynchronous 3y ago
      Because it’s extremely, EXTREMELY difficult to map Montana’s carbon emissions (mind you, one of the least populated states in the country) to actual real impact on climate change in the future. Environmentalism used to be about direct impact - contaminating waterways and the like. Moving to these more esoteric issues makes measuring and showing impact near impossible, and also makes people care less.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      Because I live in a country like Lithuania. I know what basic things being too expensive to afford is like. I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world. >Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.
satvikpendem 3y ago
Like you I also believe that the only way to get companies to listen is through money, not idealism, so by making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels (which thankfully is currently happening), companies will naturally use them over fossil fuels.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  This is true, but will those companies actually stay in a place like Montana or would they just go... elsewhere? Rural areas aren't the most attractive places for business.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions. Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      >If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they? Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many. You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards). I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.
worik 3y ago
Burn tomorrow for cake today Priceless
triceratops 3y ago
There's a very old phrase to describe what you're espousing: penny-wise pound-foolish.

ordinaryradical 3y ago

“Won’t someone think of the costs!” You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too. Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?

polygamous_bat 3y ago
Much easier to ignore the externalities if you know you will be dead by the time the bill comes due. Until them, more widgets for me!

_Algernon_ 3y ago

If including economic externalities in the price makes goods more expensive, so be it. It's how things should be done.

hypertele-Xii 3y ago

Lower prices themselves have a price. You could steal everything for free, why don't you?

lame-robot-hoax 3y ago

Carbon externalities not being reflected in the price of a good is a bug, not a feature. It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.

Aerroon 3y ago
Sure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this? What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline? I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes. People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).
- Aachen 3y ago
  Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme poverty to 10%, despite going from 2 to 8 billion inhabitants) I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
  - worik 3y ago
    > maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Very unhelpful Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody We must be kind, to make things better
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    Because it’s extremely, EXTREMELY difficult to map Montana’s carbon emissions (mind you, one of the least populated states in the country) to actual real impact on climate change in the future. Environmentalism used to be about direct impact - contaminating waterways and the like. Moving to these more esoteric issues makes measuring and showing impact near impossible, and also makes people care less.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Because I live in a country like Lithuania. I know what basic things being too expensive to afford is like. I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world. >Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

satvikpendem 3y ago

Like you I also believe that the only way to get companies to listen is through money, not idealism, so by making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels (which thankfully is currently happening), companies will naturally use them over fossil fuels.

Aerroon 3y ago
This is true, but will those companies actually stay in a place like Montana or would they just go... elsewhere? Rural areas aren't the most attractive places for business.
- Aachen 3y ago
  If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions. Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    >If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they? Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many. You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards). I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.

worik 3y ago

Burn tomorrow for cake today Priceless

triceratops 3y ago

There's a very old phrase to describe what you're espousing: penny-wise pound-foolish.