3 ms·

"Asking/convincing companies or individuals to be voluntarily ethical, one at a time, is not a solution. ...just increases the opportunity, profits and incentiv

"Asking/convincing companies or individuals to be voluntarily ethical, one at a time, is not a solution. ...just increases the opportunity, profits and incentives for less-altruistic actors." Exactly, it's why we need to reintroduce regulations many of which were removed or weakened from the late 1970s onward. Moreover, we need intelligent regulation not just gut reaction to an immediate problem. That's proving much more difficult (reigning in the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism that were let out of the bag ~50 years ago with deregulation won't be easy).

Nevermark 8mo ago
> we need intelligent regulation Absolutely. Poorly thought out, too strict, performative, or obsolete regulations create opposition for any regulation. I also think we need to co-opt the “enemy” to be regulated, in their terms. E.g. get all the major fossil fuel CFO’s in a room, and figure out the financials encouraging green energy, and away from polluting and geopolitically complicated energy, that would make cold business sense for them. Include and involve the military, insurance giants, large food security/supply chain companies like Cargill, reactor companies, big enterprise customers that want rapid energy growth, and all the other major sectors that take climate change and energy expansion seriously and will get value out of a more stable world, with better energy technology in practical terms. The people that CEOs respect. Once the biggest resisters can profit off not resisting, you will see a genuine change of heart. That can sound very cynical, but it’s just how people are. “First, I shall do no damage to my own turf.” But once they take a new position, their power doesn’t just cease it’s friction, but becomes another rocket for progress. Whatever tax breaks and other incentives it took, to make green their best move, would be worth it. Bribe? Maybe. Better understood as the cost of faster consensus and coordination. Where the price of waiting for everyone to change due to the hardship that is being locked in, is so much higher. On the other hand, after consensus, change itself needs to happen smoothly, not suddenly. Incentives and disincentive need to operate slower than we might want to make change practical. The most important thing is that those reinforcers are credible. Companies are forward looking. They will naturally move their investments today where the profits will credibly be tomorrow. They don’t need to feel pain, just know what to do to avoid it, and most importantly, prosper.
- wolvoleo 8mo ago
  > include and involve the military, insurance giants, large food security/supply chain companies like Cargill, reactor companies, big enterprise customers that want rapid energy growth, and all the other major sectors that take climate change and energy expansion seriously and will get value out of a more stable world, with better energy technology in practical terms. The people that CEOs respect Oh yeah let the corpos and MIC rule the world even more than they already do, great idea :) We should really reform the "free market" IMO. It is way too free now. They get all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.
  - etiennebausson 8mo ago
    Nowadays, "Free Market" mostly means its actors are free of the consequences of their externalities.
  - Nevermark 8mo ago
    I am talking about getting support for regulations or even law that constrain damage. Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote? Thats not more market “freedom”. To make big changes, good changes, you do need both widespread grassroots support, and the cooperation and competencies of big players. The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already. Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with. Neither surrender by blanket cynicism, or the incompetence of apathy, are going to solve anything.
    - wolvoleo 8mo ago
      > Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with. This is the part I strongly doubt. Well, not the competence exactly. But the motives. These people don't make their own decisions, they do what the board and shareholders want. And all they want is money. It's the only thing that counts for them. So the only solution is making these externalities have a cost. Business won't collaborate on that because it's only a negative for them. I don't believe in public/private collaboration anymore. In Holland that was tried way too long. > The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already. Yet they continue to run full steam to meddle in oil-producing countries. I doubt they will keep this climate change classification up anyway as it is directly in contradiction to the dogmas of the current administration.
ETH_start 8mo ago
Since the 1970s, some industries were deregulated, but overall legal and compliance complexity has still grown over time, according to all studies that I'm aware of on the subject of the regulatory burden. The studies indicate that a few large early regulations aimed at clear externalities — like major air pollution — delivered substantial benefits on the balance, but many of the smaller restrictions added afterward, especially as they accumulated, mostly generated paperwork (huge compliance industries) and fixed costs (that made smaller firms less competitive) with diminishing returns. The sensible goal should be to massively reduce the regulatory thicket, while keeping the small set of restrictions that have clear, major benefits and are straightforward to enforce, and replacing the rest with simpler standards or pricing mechanisms that prevent negative externalizations without dragging down productivity through top-down micromanagement of the economy that regiments the actions of private citizens.

Nevermark 8mo ago

> we need intelligent regulation Absolutely. Poorly thought out, too strict, performative, or obsolete regulations create opposition for any regulation. I also think we need to co-opt the “enemy” to be regulated, in their terms. E.g. get all the major fossil fuel CFO’s in a room, and figure out the financials encouraging green energy, and away from polluting and geopolitically complicated energy, that would make cold business sense for them. Include and involve the military, insurance giants, large food security/supply chain companies like Cargill, reactor companies, big enterprise customers that want rapid energy growth, and all the other major sectors that take climate change and energy expansion seriously and will get value out of a more stable world, with better energy technology in practical terms. The people that CEOs respect. Once the biggest resisters can profit off not resisting, you will see a genuine change of heart. That can sound very cynical, but it’s just how people are. “First, I shall do no damage to my own turf.” But once they take a new position, their power doesn’t just cease it’s friction, but becomes another rocket for progress. Whatever tax breaks and other incentives it took, to make green their best move, would be worth it. Bribe? Maybe. Better understood as the cost of faster consensus and coordination. Where the price of waiting for everyone to change due to the hardship that is being locked in, is so much higher. On the other hand, after consensus, change itself needs to happen smoothly, not suddenly. Incentives and disincentive need to operate slower than we might want to make change practical. The most important thing is that those reinforcers are credible. Companies are forward looking. They will naturally move their investments today where the profits will credibly be tomorrow. They don’t need to feel pain, just know what to do to avoid it, and most importantly, prosper.

wolvoleo 8mo ago
> include and involve the military, insurance giants, large food security/supply chain companies like Cargill, reactor companies, big enterprise customers that want rapid energy growth, and all the other major sectors that take climate change and energy expansion seriously and will get value out of a more stable world, with better energy technology in practical terms. The people that CEOs respect Oh yeah let the corpos and MIC rule the world even more than they already do, great idea :) We should really reform the "free market" IMO. It is way too free now. They get all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.
- etiennebausson 8mo ago
  Nowadays, "Free Market" mostly means its actors are free of the consequences of their externalities.
- Nevermark 8mo ago
  I am talking about getting support for regulations or even law that constrain damage. Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote? Thats not more market “freedom”. To make big changes, good changes, you do need both widespread grassroots support, and the cooperation and competencies of big players. The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already. Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with. Neither surrender by blanket cynicism, or the incompetence of apathy, are going to solve anything.
  - wolvoleo 8mo ago
    > Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with. This is the part I strongly doubt. Well, not the competence exactly. But the motives. These people don't make their own decisions, they do what the board and shareholders want. And all they want is money. It's the only thing that counts for them. So the only solution is making these externalities have a cost. Business won't collaborate on that because it's only a negative for them. I don't believe in public/private collaboration anymore. In Holland that was tried way too long. > The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already. Yet they continue to run full steam to meddle in oil-producing countries. I doubt they will keep this climate change classification up anyway as it is directly in contradiction to the dogmas of the current administration.

ETH_start 8mo ago

Since the 1970s, some industries were deregulated, but overall legal and compliance complexity has still grown over time, according to all studies that I'm aware of on the subject of the regulatory burden. The studies indicate that a few large early regulations aimed at clear externalities — like major air pollution — delivered substantial benefits on the balance, but many of the smaller restrictions added afterward, especially as they accumulated, mostly generated paperwork (huge compliance industries) and fixed costs (that made smaller firms less competitive) with diminishing returns. The sensible goal should be to massively reduce the regulatory thicket, while keeping the small set of restrictions that have clear, major benefits and are straightforward to enforce, and replacing the rest with simpler standards or pricing mechanisms that prevent negative externalizations without dragging down productivity through top-down micromanagement of the economy that regiments the actions of private citizens.