3 ms·

Most market problems are solved with market solutions, for the record. I’ve always been surprised at this logic. And when the market isn’t sufficient, we regula

Most market problems are solved with market solutions, for the record. I’ve always been surprised at this logic. And when the market isn’t sufficient, we regulate. Why so many environmentalists believe we need revolutionary approaches is beyond me.

arrosenberg 2y ago
The market has ignored the problem for over 50 years, while stripping the government of its capacity to regulate effectively. Many people are pessimistic its going to suddenly, spontaneously fix itself.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  Half of the world’s largest companies have committed to net zero. Maybe there is more nuance than you are describing? https://zerotracker.net/analysis/new-analysis-half-of-worlds-largest-companies-are-committed-to-net-zero# https://zerotracker.net/analysis/new-analysis-half-of-worlds...
  - atoav 2y ago
    Within their corp? Or throughout their whole supply chain + peripherals? Is their cleaning contractor also net zero? With promises like these the devil is in the details. You could have one true in spirit net zero company on the one side and another net zero shell company that has 1000 crazy polluting sub-contractors. Given the fact that many big corps can't even prevent child and slave labor within their supply chain, I have to say I believe it when I see it.
    - dr_dshiv 2y ago
      I think the lack of child labor is a great example of the market working pretty well — and getting better over time. Perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
      - fnordian_slip 2y ago
        >I think the lack of child labor is a great example of the market working pretty well[...] This is a rather unique perspective, I think. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the decline of child labor mostly due to laws? I'd say the constant stream of child labor scandals implies that the market is a force opposing the protection of children more often than not.
        dr_dshiv 2y ago
        The data seem to suggest that the reduction in child labor is due to increased wealth and prosperity. I’m not saying regulations aren’t important—they are. But markets increase wealth — and wealth reduces child labor and increases concern for the environment. https://ourworldindata.org/child-labor https://ourworldindata.org/child-labor
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Thats just a “commitment” - not in any sense an achievement. That its only half, at this late hour, rudely betrays how badly the market is failing to solve this problem.
atoav 2y ago
Sure. Can you point me to any market solution for capitalisms need for exponential growth in a limited resource world? As I said I have no hard opinions on the fix this needs. But it needs to credibly needs to address the core problem. I have yet to see a market solution that does that instead of say, selling yet another product. Regulation is another thing. I believe it could really deliver a fix. But so far it it seems a true regulatory fix will come only after the cost of climate collapse is paid by the people who extract money from the system (and by that time we will have passed multiple points of no return and seen untold pain and suffering by those people who do not benefit of this capital). If you're against revolutions, I'd argue you should be for strong regulatory measures that should have happened yesterday.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  Why is it a limited resource world? Why do you conceive of growth as requiring coal or land? Why can’t growth be growth in wellbeing or health or satisfaction? Thus, why can’t we continue to grow indefinitely? Isn’t time and attention the only limit? Here’s a brief history of capitalism: Running out of whales? Develop ground oil. Running out of elephant tusks? Develop plastics. Running out of intact forests? Develop carbon markets. Earth running hot? Cool it down. Too much carbon? Develop renewables. It’s all happening. Not at the pace you want — but do you really want to trust that a revolutionary new economic governance would deliver these outcomes as quickly or efficiently? I agree that “the point of no return” is a real risk — thawing permafrost and all that. But this is why we need to figure out geoengineering rather than banning the science of it. We can’t be so romantic as to think that we should leave nature untouched. We are nature and it is our existential need to figure out how to sustain ourselves. I think progress has been fantastic. It’s all happening— we just need a bit more time for the energy and AI transitions to happen. I believe that this optimism is both rationally founded — and probably critical for creating a shared social vision for positive outcomes. We need to know where we are going — and man, it looks good! There will be so many resources to support all human needs — and even most human desires. Let’s not break things.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    It's not happening at any pace. CO2 is going up like it always was. No dent. We need to destroy society, not develop more technology.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
Perhaps because the CO2 curve so far has not reduced is growth at all. Perhaps because species are dying right now, going extinct because of us. Perhaps because all regulation does is improve lives of people in the short-term but does not protect the environment. Tell the dead species that regulation is effective.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  CO2 curve in the USA is going down: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Because the USA can export their problems to the rest of the world.

arrosenberg 2y ago

The market has ignored the problem for over 50 years, while stripping the government of its capacity to regulate effectively. Many people are pessimistic its going to suddenly, spontaneously fix itself.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
Half of the world’s largest companies have committed to net zero. Maybe there is more nuance than you are describing? https://zerotracker.net/analysis/new-analysis-half-of-worlds-largest-companies-are-committed-to-net-zero# https://zerotracker.net/analysis/new-analysis-half-of-worlds...
- atoav 2y ago
  Within their corp? Or throughout their whole supply chain + peripherals? Is their cleaning contractor also net zero? With promises like these the devil is in the details. You could have one true in spirit net zero company on the one side and another net zero shell company that has 1000 crazy polluting sub-contractors. Given the fact that many big corps can't even prevent child and slave labor within their supply chain, I have to say I believe it when I see it.
  - dr_dshiv 2y ago
    I think the lack of child labor is a great example of the market working pretty well — and getting better over time. Perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
    - fnordian_slip 2y ago
      >I think the lack of child labor is a great example of the market working pretty well[...] This is a rather unique perspective, I think. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the decline of child labor mostly due to laws? I'd say the constant stream of child labor scandals implies that the market is a force opposing the protection of children more often than not.
      - dr_dshiv 2y ago
        The data seem to suggest that the reduction in child labor is due to increased wealth and prosperity. I’m not saying regulations aren’t important—they are. But markets increase wealth — and wealth reduces child labor and increases concern for the environment. https://ourworldindata.org/child-labor https://ourworldindata.org/child-labor
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Thats just a “commitment” - not in any sense an achievement. That its only half, at this late hour, rudely betrays how badly the market is failing to solve this problem.

atoav 2y ago

Sure. Can you point me to any market solution for capitalisms need for exponential growth in a limited resource world? As I said I have no hard opinions on the fix this needs. But it needs to credibly needs to address the core problem. I have yet to see a market solution that does that instead of say, selling yet another product. Regulation is another thing. I believe it could really deliver a fix. But so far it it seems a true regulatory fix will come only after the cost of climate collapse is paid by the people who extract money from the system (and by that time we will have passed multiple points of no return and seen untold pain and suffering by those people who do not benefit of this capital). If you're against revolutions, I'd argue you should be for strong regulatory measures that should have happened yesterday.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
Why is it a limited resource world? Why do you conceive of growth as requiring coal or land? Why can’t growth be growth in wellbeing or health or satisfaction? Thus, why can’t we continue to grow indefinitely? Isn’t time and attention the only limit? Here’s a brief history of capitalism: Running out of whales? Develop ground oil. Running out of elephant tusks? Develop plastics. Running out of intact forests? Develop carbon markets. Earth running hot? Cool it down. Too much carbon? Develop renewables. It’s all happening. Not at the pace you want — but do you really want to trust that a revolutionary new economic governance would deliver these outcomes as quickly or efficiently? I agree that “the point of no return” is a real risk — thawing permafrost and all that. But this is why we need to figure out geoengineering rather than banning the science of it. We can’t be so romantic as to think that we should leave nature untouched. We are nature and it is our existential need to figure out how to sustain ourselves. I think progress has been fantastic. It’s all happening— we just need a bit more time for the energy and AI transitions to happen. I believe that this optimism is both rationally founded — and probably critical for creating a shared social vision for positive outcomes. We need to know where we are going — and man, it looks good! There will be so many resources to support all human needs — and even most human desires. Let’s not break things.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  It's not happening at any pace. CO2 is going up like it always was. No dent. We need to destroy society, not develop more technology.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Perhaps because the CO2 curve so far has not reduced is growth at all. Perhaps because species are dying right now, going extinct because of us. Perhaps because all regulation does is improve lives of people in the short-term but does not protect the environment. Tell the dead species that regulation is effective.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
CO2 curve in the USA is going down: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Because the USA can export their problems to the rest of the world.