5 ms·

The premise seems absurd: by owning stocks in companies that create pollution, the rich are responsible for said pollution but not the people who consume the co

The premise seems absurd: by owning stocks in companies that create pollution, the rich are responsible for said pollution but not the people who consume the companies' products. I was hoping for a tally of extensive air travel, multiple homes, helicoptering in and out of burning Man, and similar follies.

M1ch431 3y ago
If you are not an active investor in any shape or form - e.g. shaping the company/suggesting how things could be more sustainable, then you're just in it for the money/playing a game. You're not an active participant functionally in society - as a shareholder/investor I'm pretty sure you can directly influence company policy if you extend yourself. You may not be able to dictate it if you do not have decision-making power, but nevertheless your words would most likely be more valued than the average person's. People are assaulted by ad campaigns. Advertisement companies and corporations have subverted or even hacked the average person's brain - you are convinced in 50+ different directions to buy X product, get the latest version, or get a new subscription. It's easy to depend on corporations to solve all your problems. It's a carefully crafted dopamine rush; seeing the ad(s), buying the product, using unsustainable services like Amazon or even the major shipping companies to ship your item from wherever with copious amounts of emissions. Do the people want a new iPhone every year? Well, even if they didn't, they are coerced to upgrade by the cellular phone companies (who probably recycle to some degree if you trade-in, but I digress). Or - they are convinced by Apple themselves - which is some sort of cult in its own right. Planned obsolescence should be illegal, and I'm sure these mostly wasteful practices are not necessary in the grand scheme of things. Apple has done a lot of harmful things to the phone to perpetuate this business model: removing the ability to easily replace the battery as a consumer/non-licensed repairman (which is probably a major cause of failure/new phone purchases) and AFAIK not allowing aftermarket/third-party components with a DRM restriction (e.g. screens). Why get your phone repaired (or mess around with their self-repair kit) when you can get yet another phone that was senselessly made because one thing got a little better. I wonder how many phones exist currently in the United States vs. our population. Something to look into I suppose. But regardless, the biggest sickness (in my mind) of the US with how we do business is the fact that we choose to clog the highways with trucks loaded to the brim/airplanes to ship products domestically/commercially. I'm only a layman, but I can't imagine that's an efficient use of energy when compared to alternatives like high speed rail - which is something we absolutely need to consider investing in as a society if we ever want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. For transportation we need to consider this, and most assuredly for freight. If we could lay rail way back then; we can now + we can 1) plan it exponentially better with many technology advancements 2) fully power these services with renewable energy. The best I can do as a non-investor, as somebody who has little resources/no clout, is this post right here. In a world of unelected corporations (read: anti-competitive monopolies) who essentially govern over me (legalized bribery/lobbying), rape the environment and make people dependent on them, and nobody in "power" is truly playing hardball with them and their unlimited greed -- I'm pretty helpless to do anything, but go with the flow (besides, though very unlikely, get filthy rich from a lottery ticket and emulate Musk). That's what the average American does, even the average voter who votes blue. If you have money, you can effect change. If you know people with money, you can effect change.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  >If you have money, you can effect change. If you know people with money, you can effect change. // How's your record go on this. Even with family members (not rich, but much richer than me) my influence is essentially zero versus the influence advertising has on them. That probably pales against the influence those who pay them have. Perhaps you meant "if you know people, with money, who are already won over to your cause; then you can effect change by partnering with them". Which is effectively "rich people can use they're influence on poor people, and their resources, to effect change".
  - M1ch431 3y ago
    Are there laws against collaborating with other shareholders/investors to push an agenda (e.g. green energy)? Just as strikes by employees cause major companies to bend, I'd imagine the same would be true if there was a consensus among those who have a stake in the company/work there. I'm not suggesting that there necessarily needs to be strikes or market manipulation, just that applying focused, intense pressure collectively would cause the companies to bend. It may not be the smartest thing to do with your money in the short-term, but we desperately need to (yesterday) rally behind things like green energy and sustainability. Changing hearts, moving minds, changing policy individually is hard. I do agree with you. I personally choose to reject the learned helplessness instilled by only voting correctly by calling people to action - to encourage discourse among their peers. If you're knowledgeable or have specific insight, speak out, make appearances or encourage and lift up those who are willing/capable to be in the spotlight. I do absolutely realize that whatever I do is a drop in the bucket because I am essentially a nobody and am physically unwell. My heart is hardened by this backwards world, and I probably don't do many favors for the things I am passionate about because I rarely sugarcoat how I express myself. Still, I do what I can when I think can be a rational voice. Putting yourself out on a limb - being gutsy and inspiring others, is something that has been forgotten largely in part (in my mind) due to the shattering of the middle class and because of mainstream media (and the divisiveness they instill). But I'd like to say that moving forward as a society, in a way that makes everybody happy - with plentiful benefits to our economy, is something that only people with stakes in absolutely unethical companies (e.g. companies involved with fossil fuels) would openly take issue with. The research is pretty clear: we need to shed this dirty habit if we want the Earth to be a good place. Customers/the many should be more active in their purchases/the way they vote. But as I explained, advertisements largely brainwash people, and there aren't enough alternatives to simply boycott these companies. Intelligent people, skilled people, (edit:) and people with money need to take the stage and move this world forward.
georgeoliver 3y ago
The question of who owns a product's externalities is not absurd at all, but pretty complicated, and unfortunately rarely responsibly accounted for.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  Maybe we could just implement a carbon tax and let the problem sort itself out?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Is it complicated? Whyy are not the externalities owned by the owner of the product? I can think of only 2 reasons: - the consumer was forced to purchase the product without an option with dire consequences. In this case, the dominator is responsible. This is pretty much anything your taxes buy. - the producer lied or hid something about the product. In this case, the liar is responsible. E.g., the lies about recycling plastic, the outcome of using internal combustion engines, the safety of leaded gasoline. The list of that is simply enormous. What other complications do you see?
  - rcme 3y ago
    Why does the responsibility solely fall on the product owner? Is it because the product owner is using the product for their own benefit? Is it not true, though, that the product manufacturer is also benefiting from the product’s usage? Why does this benefit not confer any responsibility?
    - readthenotes1 3y ago
      Because the consumer in many places have choices on how much pollution they create. You can give up your trips to Bali and use the money to live closer to work, for example. You can use a bicycle instead of a car for short trips. You can decide not to eat food that it's been shipped halfway around the world unless that is the most responsible option available to you. You can use the disposable grocery bags and not those environmentally damaging reusable ones. And do on...
tshaddox 3y ago
Why is that absurd? Surely the people who own the company are more responsible for the actions of the company than people who don’t own the company. If my local barbershop where I get my hair cut turns out to be a money laundering operation, surely the owners of the barbershop are responsible for that and I am not.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Your analogy is flawed unless you are the one laundering money in the barbershop. The producers of pollution would be irrelevant if they had no customers.
  - deely3 3y ago
    Erm. By your logic if someone selling illegal drugs this someone is not braking the laws because if no one buys it, there no selling?
    - onion2k 3y ago
      That is true. It's called Possession with the intent to supply here in the UK ... intent is the important bit. The crime of "selling drugs" is actually "holding enough drugs that no one believes they're for personal use". Many crimes are based around 'conspiracy', or the act of planning to do something illegal, without actually doing it.
    - sambazi 3y ago
      selling to noone still implies possession, which is a felony.
  - onion2k 3y ago
    This sort of argument is something that annoys me incredibly. There isn't a simple answer. Responsibility is shared between the shareholders for failing to demand action, the board for failing to act, the customers for supporting a climate-unfriendly company, and the government for failing to regulate well enough, and probably many others. The result is the action of a system that has complex interlinked parts. You can't just point a finger and say "no, it's their fault" and absolve all the other parties. This is a major part of why climate change is a problem - no single party can solve it without action from the rest, and most of the parties have antagonistic goals. If you're intelligent enough to read and comment on HN, you should be capable of thinking about things in a more nuanced way.
mypastself 3y ago
It seems to mean I can rent a gas-guzzling car and drive it everywhere, while resting easy knowing all the emissions and pollution are actually the capitalists’ fault.
personomas 3y ago
Yeah, the article pretty much proves the opposite. Namely, that the average man in the top 10% are not really much more (or, only a very little bit) responsible for pollution than the average man in the rest 90%.
akira2501 3y ago
> the rich are responsible for said pollution but not the people who consume the companies' products. Neither would be. That's just how markets work. If you think the market produces more harm than good, than that is a government issue, and what you want is more regulation. Which fairly impacts both profit and consumption equally. > I was hoping for a tally of extensive air travel, multiple homes, helicoptering in and out of burning Man, and similar follies. Yea, I prefer a little more entertainment in my class warfare, too.
sokoloff 3y ago
They have to introduce that argument in order to create a tenuous chain of logic to their goal: > Results suggest an alternative income or shareholder-based carbon tax, focused on investments, may have equity advantages over traditional consumer-facing cap-and-trade or carbon tax options and be a useful policy tool to encourage decarbonization while raising revenue for climate finance.
Nifty3929 3y ago
Producing things is no longer desirable. Now it’s more fun to criticize those who produce, because they produce.

M1ch431 3y ago

If you are not an active investor in any shape or form - e.g. shaping the company/suggesting how things could be more sustainable, then you're just in it for the money/playing a game. You're not an active participant functionally in society - as a shareholder/investor I'm pretty sure you can directly influence company policy if you extend yourself. You may not be able to dictate it if you do not have decision-making power, but nevertheless your words would most likely be more valued than the average person's. People are assaulted by ad campaigns. Advertisement companies and corporations have subverted or even hacked the average person's brain - you are convinced in 50+ different directions to buy X product, get the latest version, or get a new subscription. It's easy to depend on corporations to solve all your problems. It's a carefully crafted dopamine rush; seeing the ad(s), buying the product, using unsustainable services like Amazon or even the major shipping companies to ship your item from wherever with copious amounts of emissions. Do the people want a new iPhone every year? Well, even if they didn't, they are coerced to upgrade by the cellular phone companies (who probably recycle to some degree if you trade-in, but I digress). Or - they are convinced by Apple themselves - which is some sort of cult in its own right. Planned obsolescence should be illegal, and I'm sure these mostly wasteful practices are not necessary in the grand scheme of things. Apple has done a lot of harmful things to the phone to perpetuate this business model: removing the ability to easily replace the battery as a consumer/non-licensed repairman (which is probably a major cause of failure/new phone purchases) and AFAIK not allowing aftermarket/third-party components with a DRM restriction (e.g. screens). Why get your phone repaired (or mess around with their self-repair kit) when you can get yet another phone that was senselessly made because one thing got a little better. I wonder how many phones exist currently in the United States vs. our population. Something to look into I suppose. But regardless, the biggest sickness (in my mind) of the US with how we do business is the fact that we choose to clog the highways with trucks loaded to the brim/airplanes to ship products domestically/commercially. I'm only a layman, but I can't imagine that's an efficient use of energy when compared to alternatives like high speed rail - which is something we absolutely need to consider investing in as a society if we ever want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. For transportation we need to consider this, and most assuredly for freight. If we could lay rail way back then; we can now + we can 1) plan it exponentially better with many technology advancements 2) fully power these services with renewable energy. The best I can do as a non-investor, as somebody who has little resources/no clout, is this post right here. In a world of unelected corporations (read: anti-competitive monopolies) who essentially govern over me (legalized bribery/lobbying), rape the environment and make people dependent on them, and nobody in "power" is truly playing hardball with them and their unlimited greed -- I'm pretty helpless to do anything, but go with the flow (besides, though very unlikely, get filthy rich from a lottery ticket and emulate Musk). That's what the average American does, even the average voter who votes blue. If you have money, you can effect change. If you know people with money, you can effect change.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>If you have money, you can effect change. If you know people with money, you can effect change. // How's your record go on this. Even with family members (not rich, but much richer than me) my influence is essentially zero versus the influence advertising has on them. That probably pales against the influence those who pay them have. Perhaps you meant "if you know people, with money, who are already won over to your cause; then you can effect change by partnering with them". Which is effectively "rich people can use they're influence on poor people, and their resources, to effect change".
- M1ch431 3y ago
  Are there laws against collaborating with other shareholders/investors to push an agenda (e.g. green energy)? Just as strikes by employees cause major companies to bend, I'd imagine the same would be true if there was a consensus among those who have a stake in the company/work there. I'm not suggesting that there necessarily needs to be strikes or market manipulation, just that applying focused, intense pressure collectively would cause the companies to bend. It may not be the smartest thing to do with your money in the short-term, but we desperately need to (yesterday) rally behind things like green energy and sustainability. Changing hearts, moving minds, changing policy individually is hard. I do agree with you. I personally choose to reject the learned helplessness instilled by only voting correctly by calling people to action - to encourage discourse among their peers. If you're knowledgeable or have specific insight, speak out, make appearances or encourage and lift up those who are willing/capable to be in the spotlight. I do absolutely realize that whatever I do is a drop in the bucket because I am essentially a nobody and am physically unwell. My heart is hardened by this backwards world, and I probably don't do many favors for the things I am passionate about because I rarely sugarcoat how I express myself. Still, I do what I can when I think can be a rational voice. Putting yourself out on a limb - being gutsy and inspiring others, is something that has been forgotten largely in part (in my mind) due to the shattering of the middle class and because of mainstream media (and the divisiveness they instill). But I'd like to say that moving forward as a society, in a way that makes everybody happy - with plentiful benefits to our economy, is something that only people with stakes in absolutely unethical companies (e.g. companies involved with fossil fuels) would openly take issue with. The research is pretty clear: we need to shed this dirty habit if we want the Earth to be a good place. Customers/the many should be more active in their purchases/the way they vote. But as I explained, advertisements largely brainwash people, and there aren't enough alternatives to simply boycott these companies. Intelligent people, skilled people, (edit:) and people with money need to take the stage and move this world forward.

georgeoliver 3y ago

The question of who owns a product's externalities is not absurd at all, but pretty complicated, and unfortunately rarely responsibly accounted for.

anonuser123456 3y ago
Maybe we could just implement a carbon tax and let the problem sort itself out?
readthenotes1 3y ago
Is it complicated? Whyy are not the externalities owned by the owner of the product? I can think of only 2 reasons: - the consumer was forced to purchase the product without an option with dire consequences. In this case, the dominator is responsible. This is pretty much anything your taxes buy. - the producer lied or hid something about the product. In this case, the liar is responsible. E.g., the lies about recycling plastic, the outcome of using internal combustion engines, the safety of leaded gasoline. The list of that is simply enormous. What other complications do you see?
- rcme 3y ago
  Why does the responsibility solely fall on the product owner? Is it because the product owner is using the product for their own benefit? Is it not true, though, that the product manufacturer is also benefiting from the product’s usage? Why does this benefit not confer any responsibility?
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Because the consumer in many places have choices on how much pollution they create. You can give up your trips to Bali and use the money to live closer to work, for example. You can use a bicycle instead of a car for short trips. You can decide not to eat food that it's been shipped halfway around the world unless that is the most responsible option available to you. You can use the disposable grocery bags and not those environmentally damaging reusable ones. And do on...

tshaddox 3y ago

Why is that absurd? Surely the people who own the company are more responsible for the actions of the company than people who don’t own the company. If my local barbershop where I get my hair cut turns out to be a money laundering operation, surely the owners of the barbershop are responsible for that and I am not.

readthenotes1 3y ago
Your analogy is flawed unless you are the one laundering money in the barbershop. The producers of pollution would be irrelevant if they had no customers.
- deely3 3y ago
  Erm. By your logic if someone selling illegal drugs this someone is not braking the laws because if no one buys it, there no selling?
  - onion2k 3y ago
    That is true. It's called Possession with the intent to supply here in the UK ... intent is the important bit. The crime of "selling drugs" is actually "holding enough drugs that no one believes they're for personal use". Many crimes are based around 'conspiracy', or the act of planning to do something illegal, without actually doing it.
  - sambazi 3y ago
    selling to noone still implies possession, which is a felony.
- onion2k 3y ago
  This sort of argument is something that annoys me incredibly. There isn't a simple answer. Responsibility is shared between the shareholders for failing to demand action, the board for failing to act, the customers for supporting a climate-unfriendly company, and the government for failing to regulate well enough, and probably many others. The result is the action of a system that has complex interlinked parts. You can't just point a finger and say "no, it's their fault" and absolve all the other parties. This is a major part of why climate change is a problem - no single party can solve it without action from the rest, and most of the parties have antagonistic goals. If you're intelligent enough to read and comment on HN, you should be capable of thinking about things in a more nuanced way.

mypastself 3y ago

It seems to mean I can rent a gas-guzzling car and drive it everywhere, while resting easy knowing all the emissions and pollution are actually the capitalists’ fault.

personomas 3y ago

Yeah, the article pretty much proves the opposite. Namely, that the average man in the top 10% are not really much more (or, only a very little bit) responsible for pollution than the average man in the rest 90%.

akira2501 3y ago

> the rich are responsible for said pollution but not the people who consume the companies' products. Neither would be. That's just how markets work. If you think the market produces more harm than good, than that is a government issue, and what you want is more regulation. Which fairly impacts both profit and consumption equally. > I was hoping for a tally of extensive air travel, multiple homes, helicoptering in and out of burning Man, and similar follies. Yea, I prefer a little more entertainment in my class warfare, too.

sokoloff 3y ago

They have to introduce that argument in order to create a tenuous chain of logic to their goal: > Results suggest an alternative income or shareholder-based carbon tax, focused on investments, may have equity advantages over traditional consumer-facing cap-and-trade or carbon tax options and be a useful policy tool to encourage decarbonization while raising revenue for climate finance.

Nifty3929 3y ago

Producing things is no longer desirable. Now it’s more fun to criticize those who produce, because they produce.