3 ms·

> But no climate change alarmists are proposing that. Why not? There are plenty of "climate change alarmists" proposing that. Historically both "green" activis

> But no climate change alarmists are proposing that. Why not? There are plenty of "climate change alarmists" proposing that. Historically both "green" activists and the corporate profit motive have prevented nuclear deployment (and killed extant nuclear capacity). > stop thinking that governments can solve problems Idk, it wasn't corporations who voluntarily chose to stop dumping chemicals into rivers or lead into gasoline. Capitalism is probably the most effective tool to solve 99.999% of problems, but it is not a good tool for the remaining 0.001%, many of which happen to be structurally important, and it's not good for managing its own externalities.

pdonis 3y ago
> There are plenty of "climate change alarmists" proposing that. References, please? > it wasn't corporations who voluntarily chose to stop dumping chemicals into rivers or lead into gasoline. It was governments who allowed them to do those things in the first place. The fact that governments eventually stepped in to stop them doesn't mean governments solve problems. It means governments create problems--and then sometimes manage to sort of mitigate them.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Sure! https://www.replanet.ngo/post/18-year-old-school-striker-launches-legal-action-to-defend-nuclear-power-s-place-in-eu-taxonomy https://www.replanet.ngo/post/18-year-old-school-striker-lau... there you go, your claim that "no climate alarmists" advocate nuclear is disproven. > It was governments who allowed them to do those things in the first place. The fact that governments eventually stepped in to stop them doesn't mean governments solve problems. It means governments create problems--and then sometimes manage to sort of mitigate them. bro what. That's some incredible gymnastics. "Government regulation doesn't solve problems. Examples of problems that government regulation solved are actually examples of the failure of government's prior regulatory policy of 'no regulation,' another damning indictment of regulatory policy!" Remarkable.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > the failure of government's prior regulatory policy of 'no regulation Bro what? The government's prior policy was not "no regulation". It was "regulation that prevents ordinary people from challenging corporations because hey, the government's got this, so ordinary people shouldn't be able to stop corporations from building plants that will dump chemicals into rivers or putting toxic substances into gasoline". Which meant those things could be done unchecked until the government decided to stop them--instead of ordinary people getting a chance to say "no" up front, when it would have mattered.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      1) What regulation was that? There were all sorts of lawsuits throughout history against polluting companies, most of which were unsuccessful because the companies weren't breaking the law, not because they didn't have a right to sue. 2) Obviously even today, companies can only be sued for... breaking the law. So it's clearly not true that "governments don't solve problems." They create the very structure by which companies can be held accountable for this stuff. 3) What do you mean "when it mattered?" Are you of the belief that it's good ol' self restraint that's stopping companies from dumping chemicals in the rivers today?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > What regulation was that? You yourself described it: the government-made laws allowed companies to pollute, and that prevented people from successfully suing them--because they weren't breaking the law. Because the government made the laws that way. > companies can only be sued for... breaking the law. In our current government-controlled environment, yes, this is true. But that is no argument for our current government-controlled environment being a good thing. > What do you mean "when it mattered?" Isn't that obvious? When it mattered was before the polluting started in the first place. What prevents people from stopping these things in advance? The fact that they don't own the land and the rivers and the air that are being polluted--the government does. So only the government can stop them from being polluted. The government has taken away the people's ownership of these things and is doing a very bad job of stewardship of them. And you think this is good?

pdonis 3y ago

> There are plenty of "climate change alarmists" proposing that. References, please? > it wasn't corporations who voluntarily chose to stop dumping chemicals into rivers or lead into gasoline. It was governments who allowed them to do those things in the first place. The fact that governments eventually stepped in to stop them doesn't mean governments solve problems. It means governments create problems--and then sometimes manage to sort of mitigate them.

ethanbond 3y ago
Sure! https://www.replanet.ngo/post/18-year-old-school-striker-launches-legal-action-to-defend-nuclear-power-s-place-in-eu-taxonomy https://www.replanet.ngo/post/18-year-old-school-striker-lau... there you go, your claim that "no climate alarmists" advocate nuclear is disproven. > It was governments who allowed them to do those things in the first place. The fact that governments eventually stepped in to stop them doesn't mean governments solve problems. It means governments create problems--and then sometimes manage to sort of mitigate them. bro what. That's some incredible gymnastics. "Government regulation doesn't solve problems. Examples of problems that government regulation solved are actually examples of the failure of government's prior regulatory policy of 'no regulation,' another damning indictment of regulatory policy!" Remarkable.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > the failure of government's prior regulatory policy of 'no regulation Bro what? The government's prior policy was not "no regulation". It was "regulation that prevents ordinary people from challenging corporations because hey, the government's got this, so ordinary people shouldn't be able to stop corporations from building plants that will dump chemicals into rivers or putting toxic substances into gasoline". Which meant those things could be done unchecked until the government decided to stop them--instead of ordinary people getting a chance to say "no" up front, when it would have mattered.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    1) What regulation was that? There were all sorts of lawsuits throughout history against polluting companies, most of which were unsuccessful because the companies weren't breaking the law, not because they didn't have a right to sue. 2) Obviously even today, companies can only be sued for... breaking the law. So it's clearly not true that "governments don't solve problems." They create the very structure by which companies can be held accountable for this stuff. 3) What do you mean "when it mattered?" Are you of the belief that it's good ol' self restraint that's stopping companies from dumping chemicals in the rivers today?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > What regulation was that? You yourself described it: the government-made laws allowed companies to pollute, and that prevented people from successfully suing them--because they weren't breaking the law. Because the government made the laws that way. > companies can only be sued for... breaking the law. In our current government-controlled environment, yes, this is true. But that is no argument for our current government-controlled environment being a good thing. > What do you mean "when it mattered?" Isn't that obvious? When it mattered was before the polluting started in the first place. What prevents people from stopping these things in advance? The fact that they don't own the land and the rivers and the air that are being polluted--the government does. So only the government can stop them from being polluted. The government has taken away the people's ownership of these things and is doing a very bad job of stewardship of them. And you think this is good?