3 ms·

I hate this take. Corporations don't pollute for fun; they pollute to provide goods and services for their customers. The responsibility sits with the end con

by SR2Z 2y ago

I hate this take. Corporations don't pollute for fun; they pollute to provide goods and services for their customers. The responsibility sits with the end consumer who wants affordable quality, not the company that provided the good. We need a carbon tax. Nothing else will align peoples' incentives. Pointing at big companies and saying it's their fault certainly won't.

Log_out_ 2y ago
Saved expenses and protected investments is the closest thing a cooperate process amoeba can get to fun.
dredmorbius 2y ago
That argument would have far greater credibility if firms did not: - Manipulate public impressions, through advertising and propaganda (pretty much every commercial concern ever). - Manipulate legal contexts, particularly of regulation (existence of, aspects of, capture of regulatory bodies) and liability, and seeking preferable competitive - Engage in extensive and decades-long disinformation campaigns (lead, asbestos, CFCs, tobacco, auto safety, coal, oil, opioids, global warming, ...). - Engage in direct attacks, surveillance, harassment, and in cases violence and assassination against whistleblowers and public advocates (Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Chico Mendez, Berta Cáceres, Isidro Baldenegro López, Jairo Mora Sandoval, Greta Thunberg, Vandana Shiva, Winona LaDuke, Erin Brockovich, Judi Bari, Wangari Maathai, Siwon Tangnoi, Dilma Ferreira Silva, Dilma Ferreira Silva, Kimberly Wasserman, Marielle Franco, Gustavo Castro Soto, Hilda Lini, Paul Watson, and many, many, many more). - Engage in monopolistic actions to eliminate competition (Standard Oil, Railroad industry, US Steel, Du Pont, American Tobacco, AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, ...). Quite often aimed at removing more environmentally-benign alternatives. - Direct conspiracy to eliminate lower-impact solutions (General Motors streetcar conspiracy). - Directly subverting emissions controls or tests (Volkswagen, many, many manufacturing and chemical concerns). - Lied, lied, lied, and lied again in countless investigations, court cases, inquisitions, scientific studies, public statements, and far more, over what the truth and actual internal understanding of circumstances surrounding goods, services, processes, and impacts are. What you're saying in effect is that market processes alone are not sufficient to ensure good-citizen behaviour from commercial institutions, which is what the general economic concept of externalities (both positive and negative) would strongly support. This means that markets alone won't work. Your own suggested approach of a carbon tax has numerous opponents, including most especially the fossil fuels and heavy industries sectors, much of the transportation sector, and others. There is also considerable resistance from the public and less-developed countries both of which fear that impacts of such taxes would disproportionately disadvantage them. There's the further challenge that a carbon tax would have to be substantially global in scope, which is challenging without an effective global governance structure, meaning that implementation would likely have to rely on treaties between major carbon emitters. The current process toward such a goal, the COP (conference of parties) which is going on 30 years without effective progress. I'll also note that in virtually all cases where negative externalities have been successfully addressed, it has not been through market mechanisms but through regulation, civil action, litigation, and in cases direct violent action. Firms have shown repeatedly that they won't respond to anything else. Shifting burden from the point sources (manufacturers, retailers, producers, service providers) to the general public also inherently increases overall costs and decreases effectiveness. Having a single point or fewer points of control is inherently advantageous in any attempt to influence outcomes, whether mechanical, technical, political, or economic, simply on an effort / impacts basis. I deny you the high ground here. Sources are various, but Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt is a good recent overview of the general dynamic with sources to many more references. Annie Leonard's other writing also makes the case strongly. Ralph Nader gives an excellent contemporary (1967) account of abuses by US auto manufacturers as well as the harassment, smear, and surveillance campaign against him by GM in this Studs Terkel interview: <https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/ralph-nader-discusses-his-book-unsafe-any-speed https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/ralph-nader-discusses-...>. Direct audio: <https://s3.amazonaws.com/wfmt-studs-terkel/published/11364.mp3 https://s3.amazonaws.com/wfmt-studs-terkel/published/11364.m...> (MP3).

by SR2Z 2y ago

Log_out_ 2y ago

Saved expenses and protected investments is the closest thing a cooperate process amoeba can get to fun.

dredmorbius 2y ago

That argument would have far greater credibility if firms did not: - Manipulate public impressions, through advertising and propaganda (pretty much every commercial concern ever). - Manipulate legal contexts, particularly of regulation (existence of, aspects of, capture of regulatory bodies) and liability, and seeking preferable competitive - Engage in extensive and decades-long disinformation campaigns (lead, asbestos, CFCs, tobacco, auto safety, coal, oil, opioids, global warming, ...). - Engage in direct attacks, surveillance, harassment, and in cases violence and assassination against whistleblowers and public advocates (Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Chico Mendez, Berta Cáceres, Isidro Baldenegro López, Jairo Mora Sandoval, Greta Thunberg, Vandana Shiva, Winona LaDuke, Erin Brockovich, Judi Bari, Wangari Maathai, Siwon Tangnoi, Dilma Ferreira Silva, Dilma Ferreira Silva, Kimberly Wasserman, Marielle Franco, Gustavo Castro Soto, Hilda Lini, Paul Watson, and many, many, many more). - Engage in monopolistic actions to eliminate competition (Standard Oil, Railroad industry, US Steel, Du Pont, American Tobacco, AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, ...). Quite often aimed at removing more environmentally-benign alternatives. - Direct conspiracy to eliminate lower-impact solutions (General Motors streetcar conspiracy). - Directly subverting emissions controls or tests (Volkswagen, many, many manufacturing and chemical concerns). - Lied, lied, lied, and lied again in countless investigations, court cases, inquisitions, scientific studies, public statements, and far more, over what the truth and actual internal understanding of circumstances surrounding goods, services, processes, and impacts are. What you're saying in effect is that market processes alone are not sufficient to ensure good-citizen behaviour from commercial institutions, which is what the general economic concept of externalities (both positive and negative) would strongly support. This means that markets alone won't work. Your own suggested approach of a carbon tax has numerous opponents, including most especially the fossil fuels and heavy industries sectors, much of the transportation sector, and others. There is also considerable resistance from the public and less-developed countries both of which fear that impacts of such taxes would disproportionately disadvantage them. There's the further challenge that a carbon tax would have to be substantially global in scope, which is challenging without an effective global governance structure, meaning that implementation would likely have to rely on treaties between major carbon emitters. The current process toward such a goal, the COP (conference of parties) which is going on 30 years without effective progress. I'll also note that in virtually all cases where negative externalities have been successfully addressed, it has not been through market mechanisms but through regulation, civil action, litigation, and in cases direct violent action. Firms have shown repeatedly that they won't respond to anything else. Shifting burden from the point sources (manufacturers, retailers, producers, service providers) to the general public also inherently increases overall costs and decreases effectiveness. Having a single point or fewer points of control is inherently advantageous in any attempt to influence outcomes, whether mechanical, technical, political, or economic, simply on an effort / impacts basis. I deny you the high ground here. Sources are various, but Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt is a good recent overview of the general dynamic with sources to many more references. Annie Leonard's other writing also makes the case strongly. Ralph Nader gives an excellent contemporary (1967) account of abuses by US auto manufacturers as well as the harassment, smear, and surveillance campaign against him by GM in this Studs Terkel interview: <https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/ralph-nader-discusses-his-book-unsafe-any-speed https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/ralph-nader-discusses-...>. Direct audio: <https://s3.amazonaws.com/wfmt-studs-terkel/published/11364.mp3 https://s3.amazonaws.com/wfmt-studs-terkel/published/11364.m...> (MP3).