3 ms·

Consider that most people did not enjoy the shutdowns and they quickly became extremely unpopular politically.

triceratops 3y ago
People didn't enjoy the inability to socialize freely, go to the movies or the hairdresser. I know others who had the time of their lives hanging out with friends in the backyard, drinking beers and grilling.
- arp242 3y ago
  Well there's shutdowns and there's shutdowns; "hanging out with friends in the backyard, drinking beers and grilling" was pretty much illegal during some of them.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Reducing economic activity to deal with climate change wouldn't be the type of shutdown to make socializing illegal. Quite the opposite actually. Also I don't recall it ever being illegal to meet people outdoors with social distancing.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Okay, I’ll bite. How much was economic activity reduced during the shutdowns? By how much did did reduce emissions, was it 2 percent or 5 percent? By how much would we need to reduce economic activity to reduce emissions by 100%( Which is the amount of reduction needed for dealing with climate change)? What if we, instead of shutting down the economy, redirected it to build renewables and nuclear?
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        What if we did both
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        konschubert 3y ago
        It would be less effective than just taxing co2. If you’re not sure about the price you can do an auction of a limited contingency of emission certificates.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        From skimming this article's abstract[1] emissions went down 8-17% in April 2020. It doesn't say how much the GDP went down by. Lots of people lost jobs in April. But only 6 months later we had the tightest labor market in decades, so swings and roundabouts. It isn't a binary choice between stopping all economic activity and 100% renewables and nuclear. There is a range of choices and priorities. For instance, what would we really lose by eliminating private jets, super yachts, and cruise ships tomorrow? 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281825/
      - kjkjadksj 3y ago
        The only way to redirect an economy like you describe is with central planning which is absolutely not the American Way (tm).
        konschubert 3y ago
        No, you can just impose a tax on CO2. You can even lower other taxes to compensate. It has a similar effect of redirecting resources, while actually working.
        kjkjadksj 3y ago
        Taxes are usually just passed to the consumer and you can be sure a co2 tax will increase the cost of just about everything sold, EVs included.

People didn't enjoy the inability to socialize freely, go to the movies or the hairdresser. I know others who had the time of their lives hanging out with friends in the backyard, drinking beers and grilling.

arp242 3y ago
Well there's shutdowns and there's shutdowns; "hanging out with friends in the backyard, drinking beers and grilling" was pretty much illegal during some of them.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Reducing economic activity to deal with climate change wouldn't be the type of shutdown to make socializing illegal. Quite the opposite actually. Also I don't recall it ever being illegal to meet people outdoors with social distancing.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Okay, I’ll bite. How much was economic activity reduced during the shutdowns? By how much did did reduce emissions, was it 2 percent or 5 percent? By how much would we need to reduce economic activity to reduce emissions by 100%( Which is the amount of reduction needed for dealing with climate change)? What if we, instead of shutting down the economy, redirected it to build renewables and nuclear?
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      What if we did both
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - konschubert 3y ago
        It would be less effective than just taxing co2. If you’re not sure about the price you can do an auction of a limited contingency of emission certificates.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      From skimming this article's abstract[1] emissions went down 8-17% in April 2020. It doesn't say how much the GDP went down by. Lots of people lost jobs in April. But only 6 months later we had the tightest labor market in decades, so swings and roundabouts. It isn't a binary choice between stopping all economic activity and 100% renewables and nuclear. There is a range of choices and priorities. For instance, what would we really lose by eliminating private jets, super yachts, and cruise ships tomorrow? 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281825/
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      The only way to redirect an economy like you describe is with central planning which is absolutely not the American Way (tm).
      - konschubert 3y ago
        No, you can just impose a tax on CO2. You can even lower other taxes to compensate. It has a similar effect of redirecting resources, while actually working.
        kjkjadksj 3y ago
        Taxes are usually just passed to the consumer and you can be sure a co2 tax will increase the cost of just about everything sold, EVs included.