Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis
316 comments
It’s politically impossible. Even if we do it, the resulting reduction in fossil consumption here will lower their price and cause them to be burned in developing nations. CO2 is CO2 and physics doesn’t care about politics.
Poor countries cannot afford the luxury of caring about the distant future and poverty is worse than most natural disasters. There is too much to be gained by exploiting cheap energy to undercut others on manufacturing cost. The rise of China is illustrative.
Game theoretically this requires an “all cooperate” scenario in a game whose defection payoff increases as more cooperate. Ask yourself the odds of that in today’s world.
The climate solution would be to pour massive amounts of funding and subsidies into every possible candidate for this, and into scaling and cutting the cost of the candidates that we already have.
We have to get some mix of solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, batteries, etc. scaled to the point that it can beat coal and oil on the open global market. It has to be able to win on pure economics.
Reducing the cost of non carbon based energy to below the cost of carbon based energy is the only solution that will “take.”
Poor countries cannot afford the luxury of caring about the distant future and poverty is worse than most natural disasters. There is too much to be gained by exploiting cheap energy to undercut others on manufacturing cost. The rise of China is illustrative.
Game theoretically this requires an “all cooperate” scenario in a game whose defection payoff increases as more cooperate. Ask yourself the odds of that in today’s world.
The climate solution would be to pour massive amounts of funding and subsidies into every possible candidate for this, and into scaling and cutting the cost of the candidates that we already have.
We have to get some mix of solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, batteries, etc. scaled to the point that it can beat coal and oil on the open global market. It has to be able to win on pure economics.
Reducing the cost of non carbon based energy to below the cost of carbon based energy is the only solution that will “take.”
> Even if we do it, the resulting reduction in fossil consumption here will lower their price and cause them to be burned in developing nations.
What if all of the developed nations agreed to impose punitively high tariffs on all imports from developing nations that did this?
What if all of the developed nations agreed to impose punitively high tariffs on all imports from developing nations that did this?
First defector wins cheaper goods than everyone else.
The only way it could work is if the USA, China, the EU, Russia, Japan, and all the other major powers and modern economies all formed a tight unified front. I see basically zero chance of that happening.
The US, EU, and their orbit seem like the only ones that care even a little, and they are doing half measures at the very best. China pretends to care and burns more coal. Russia’s entire economy is dependent on fossil fuels, as is much of the Middle East.
Then keep in mind that any measure that squeezes the middle class is going to provoke a huge populist backlash. Do anything that impoverishes working people and climate change denialists will be voted in.
Make low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels or prepare for 800+ppm CO2. That’s how I see it.
The only way it could work is if the USA, China, the EU, Russia, Japan, and all the other major powers and modern economies all formed a tight unified front. I see basically zero chance of that happening.
The US, EU, and their orbit seem like the only ones that care even a little, and they are doing half measures at the very best. China pretends to care and burns more coal. Russia’s entire economy is dependent on fossil fuels, as is much of the Middle East.
Then keep in mind that any measure that squeezes the middle class is going to provoke a huge populist backlash. Do anything that impoverishes working people and climate change denialists will be voted in.
Make low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels or prepare for 800+ppm CO2. That’s how I see it.
So the developed world could also enable cheap, clean energy production in the third world.
The proposed changes include a $12,000 tax rebate on buying a new electric car, weatherization incentives for homes, and will probably include sweet deals on solar panels. Where’s the inconvenience?
Only if the vehicle is built in a union shop, which the leading EV manufacturer is not. The credit is significantly reduced otherwise.
Also, gas burning PHEVs (Prius) count as EVs which is such a limp handout to legacy auto and does little to push R&D forward.
Also, gas burning PHEVs (Prius) count as EVs which is such a limp handout to legacy auto and does little to push R&D forward.
Honestly, I'll never understand American politics. Linking a EV tax credit to unionisation just boggles my mind.
It's basically a bribe -- there was pretty well-sourced reporting that UAW was going to lobby against the electric vehicle package because electric require less manufacturing labor than ICE cars do (ugh), so this was the way to buy them off. It's sort of annoying, but probably tactically the right move given how much power labor has in Democratic politics.
Doctors in the UK were effectively bribed to allow the National Health Service to be created. "I stuffed their mouths with gold" is the quote. Organised, doctors could have simply refused to take any part in this endeavour and killed it, but with some having sound ethical reason to agree with the plan and others having financial reasons that was enough to ensure that resistance was piecemeal and today even those who most want to destroy the NHS are obliged to couch this as "reform".
This is the first time I have seen the word labor used in the context of US politics.
Really? The unions hold a lot of power, even today. That’s why the federal and California vaccine mandates have huge carve outs for the unions. The Democrats know who butters their bread and they’re willing to give them a pass knowing they’ll retain their votes next election.
Really. Unions, of course. But labor? No.
So you’re saying unions don’t represent labor?
No I said :
> This is the first time I have seen the word labor used in the context of US politics.
> This is the first time I have seen the word labor used in the context of US politics.
It's a fairly common term. Ie Labor day, AFL union. But it doesn't have as common of a linguistic relationship it did in prior decades. I bet it's one of those things you'll start seeing everywhere.
Right, you’re saying unions don’t represent labor because if they did, the constant talk about unions who the equivalent of taking about labor.
It falls under the "just transition" stuff.
It's not the autoworker or coalminer's fault and they and their communities should be considered in the solution, not just trampled over, for both political reasons and for basic justice.
It's not the autoworker or coalminer's fault and they and their communities should be considered in the solution, not just trampled over, for both political reasons and for basic justice.
Tesla's mission statement is “To accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”. Even if this bill gives advantages to its competitors, Tesla wins, as electric cars get adopted faster. Also it's a huge global company at this point with lots of ammo to start lobbying, so I'm not worried about it at all.
> Where’s the inconvenience?
I don't want to buy a new electric car. I have a perfectly working petrol car. Why should I subsidize some rich guy's fancy new electric toy?
I don't want to buy a new electric car. I have a perfectly working petrol car. Why should I subsidize some rich guy's fancy new electric toy?
Because the rest of us are subsidizing the externality of the destruction your petrol car is wreaking on the environment.
...also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism - do you even live in the US? If not, you won't be the one subsidizing it in case this bill comes to pass anyway.
...also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism - do you even live in the US? If not, you won't be the one subsidizing it in case this bill comes to pass anyway.
> also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism
"Petrol" is the more common term. If anything, "gasoline" is an Americanism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Etymology
> In most Commonwealth countries, the product is called "petrol", rather than "gasoline"
> The use of the word gasoline instead of petrol is uncommon outside North America,
"Petrol" is the more common term. If anything, "gasoline" is an Americanism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Etymology
> In most Commonwealth countries, the product is called "petrol", rather than "gasoline"
> The use of the word gasoline instead of petrol is uncommon outside North America,
I don't live in the US, but I will still be subsidizing it. I work for an American corp. If the customers and owners of the company are paying more tax to Uncle Sam, they're gonna be paying less salary to me.
[deleted]
I don't even have a car, why should I subsizide someone elses? They should just not have a car, like me. If that doesn't work where they live, the move to somewhere where it works, and pay absurd rents, like I do.
I'm not strictly against the subsizidies, but they have sever social justice implications.
I'm not strictly against the subsizidies, but they have sever social justice implications.
EV subsidies seem to be set at roughly the amount the country will save in various related costs, health from pollution, importing oil, carbon abatement, supporting green grids etc. I'm not sure if thats a coincidence or not, but either way it massively shifts the impact from being benefit to rich person in new EV car to poor person outside EV (or any) car.
[deleted]
I can't tell if this is a joke comment...
Taxing carbon has justification. Subsidizing EVs does not. If I walk and bike everywhere, I shouldn't be funding someone's EV, which has its own externalities above and beyond my bike related to lithium mining and manufacturing and the grid not being fully renewable and taking up more space on public roads. They should be giving me money instead.
I agree with that in some respects, but to be consistent someone else can pick this up and use it as an excuse not to fund lots of other things too.
But also remember that your lifestyle is being subsidized by oil and gas as well. The food you eat, the bike parts for your bike, the road you ride on, all of that is built using oil. So you’re not absolved of oil sin here.
With that being said, EVs are just a bandaid on what is already the wrong solution. The problem is driving at all, not driving gasoline or electric cars. We should be walking and biking and designing cities and towns around that as the primary mode of transportation, not the car. It’s insane that it is normalized in America that if you want something like a cup of coffee people will drive a 3,000lb vehicle half a mile to go get it. The energy expenditure for that is unbelievable. We live in a golden age of cheap energy.
But also remember that your lifestyle is being subsidized by oil and gas as well. The food you eat, the bike parts for your bike, the road you ride on, all of that is built using oil. So you’re not absolved of oil sin here.
With that being said, EVs are just a bandaid on what is already the wrong solution. The problem is driving at all, not driving gasoline or electric cars. We should be walking and biking and designing cities and towns around that as the primary mode of transportation, not the car. It’s insane that it is normalized in America that if you want something like a cup of coffee people will drive a 3,000lb vehicle half a mile to go get it. The energy expenditure for that is unbelievable. We live in a golden age of cheap energy.
Because we all, including you, still live on this planet. We need more people, lots more, to switch their purchase to electric vehicles. We all need this.
[deleted]
We need everyone to stop using ICE vehicles, which is distinct to needing everyone to switch to EVs. That distinction is the reason why EV subsidies are so much worse than a carbon or ICE tax. A subsidy leads to pathologies like bike owners giving money to EV owners when that arrow should be flipped. I don't need an EV (or any car), but now I'm artificially incentivized to get one and will actually increase pollution when I otherwise wouldn't have.
Thats fine though, you're an outlier (I am too). But general action on climate change is good for people who cycle and use public transport and want to live in livable cities, so its all good. No need to stress over a minor political compromise on the way there. Just enjoy the cleaner air the next time you are out cycling.
While bikes, walking, and public transportation are great in cities, for much of the United States those are not viable options.
Addressed by an ICE tax. The only argument I'm willing to buy is that EV subsidies is a political compromise made out of necessity, not that it's superior policy.
Americans (and Australians) will never accept any changes that negatively impact their lives or wallets. Especially when the consequences of climate change are not clear and present. As democracies, we will simply vote out any government that asks us to change our ways.
I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change, and that they are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Nearly 700,000 Americans have died as a direct result of Covid, can you imagine how many people will have to die before people give up air travel or eating beef.
Covid has made me realize that no solution that asks people to wind back energy use will work, we need to push forward and develop carbon sequestration and other terrafoming technologies.
I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change, and that they are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Nearly 700,000 Americans have died as a direct result of Covid, can you imagine how many people will have to die before people give up air travel or eating beef.
Covid has made me realize that no solution that asks people to wind back energy use will work, we need to push forward and develop carbon sequestration and other terrafoming technologies.
Except that Americans and Australians have proven over and over again that they will accept changes that negatively impact their lives and wallets, most recently the voluntary and involuntary changes that negatively affected their lives and wallets due to COVID-19.
I realize it was a little disrespectful of me to dismiss the many people who have made huge sacrifices to help prevent the virus both here in Australia and the US. The lockdowns have been very tough, and many businesses ruined. I'm in a two week quarantine after a close contact in a supermarket right now.
I should have suggested that "some" people will not change, and they will be very vocal. Many politicians will want their vote, and its not clear to me who will have the majority in our democracies.
I should have suggested that "some" people will not change, and they will be very vocal. Many politicians will want their vote, and its not clear to me who will have the majority in our democracies.
I think you're just frustrated at what you believe is the inability of other people to see a danger you do. I suppose I'm one of those people. I didn't find your comparison to covid disrespectful, it just seemed to undermine your belief that carbon sequestration was the only way to go.
If anything the respective COVID responses show that Australia and the US are quite different, despite the frequent parallels drawn.
Australia and America definitely differed in the case of COVID-19.
There was huge support for lockdown and restrictions here for a long time, and only just in the last few weeks is compliance becoming an issue in Melbourne (but not so much elsewhere). Turns out a year of social restrictions causes fatigue.
There was huge support for lockdown and restrictions here for a long time, and only just in the last few weeks is compliance becoming an issue in Melbourne (but not so much elsewhere). Turns out a year of social restrictions causes fatigue.
A sizable fraction - haven't- accepted these changes, hence why the disease persists at massive levels in the US.
Whether or not it's fair to blame this minority for the persistence of the disease and its variants is irrelevant to the argument he was making.
> Americans (and Australians) will never accept any changes that negatively impact their lives or wallets.
Luckily, a lot of the electrification parts of the climate bill will save Americans (and Australians) money without changing lifestyles — same size homes, cars, etc — just electrified. Electric machinery is just that much more efficient.
Rewiring America and Rewiring Australia have the actual numbers: https://www.rewiringamerica.org/ and https://www.rewiringaustralia.org/
Luckily, a lot of the electrification parts of the climate bill will save Americans (and Australians) money without changing lifestyles — same size homes, cars, etc — just electrified. Electric machinery is just that much more efficient.
Rewiring America and Rewiring Australia have the actual numbers: https://www.rewiringamerica.org/ and https://www.rewiringaustralia.org/
It's going to be hard to convince folks to replace their gas water heaters with electric heat pump models that cost ~3x more and save little to no cost annually.
I'm not sure drilling for a heat pump would work in town here, and then the operating cost would still likely be more than gas (heating is at least 75% of my annual consumption).
Figuring out how to eliminate those emissions is important, but it sure as hell isn't going to save me money, especially now and in the short term.
I'm not sure drilling for a heat pump would work in town here, and then the operating cost would still likely be more than gas (heating is at least 75% of my annual consumption).
Figuring out how to eliminate those emissions is important, but it sure as hell isn't going to save me money, especially now and in the short term.
I'm glad you laid out all the misconceptions about heat pumps!
> It's going to be hard to convince folks to replace their gas water heaters with electric heat pump models that cost ~3x more and save little to no cost annually.
Heat pumps are not "3x" as expensive and the price is coming down. Heat pumps are also a lot more efficient than any other heat source! Most households in the US would save ~$500/year on the energy bill if they switched to air-source heat pumps. Source: https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/bringing-infrastructu... This doesn't account for business use.
So it works like solar panels and electric cars — higher up front cost that saves you money over the long term. And if the government gave up-front rebates to make the costs the same or lower than furnaces then it's a no-brainer to use heat pumps.
>I'm not sure drilling for a heat pump would work in town here, and then the operating cost would still likely be more than gas (heating is at least 75% of my annual consumption).
Air source heat pumps are where it's at — waaay easier install than using ground-source or water-source. Air-source heat pumps used to not work in colder climates but now they do and have gotten a lot more efficient. These things are really awesome, a pretty good way to slash emissions while saving money over the long term.
> It's going to be hard to convince folks to replace their gas water heaters with electric heat pump models that cost ~3x more and save little to no cost annually.
Heat pumps are not "3x" as expensive and the price is coming down. Heat pumps are also a lot more efficient than any other heat source! Most households in the US would save ~$500/year on the energy bill if they switched to air-source heat pumps. Source: https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/bringing-infrastructu... This doesn't account for business use.
So it works like solar panels and electric cars — higher up front cost that saves you money over the long term. And if the government gave up-front rebates to make the costs the same or lower than furnaces then it's a no-brainer to use heat pumps.
>I'm not sure drilling for a heat pump would work in town here, and then the operating cost would still likely be more than gas (heating is at least 75% of my annual consumption).
Air source heat pumps are where it's at — waaay easier install than using ground-source or water-source. Air-source heat pumps used to not work in colder climates but now they do and have gotten a lot more efficient. These things are really awesome, a pretty good way to slash emissions while saving money over the long term.
Heat pump water heaters are not the same thing as heat pumps used for home heating. Please edit your comment to make it clear you misunderstood what I was talking about.
My expectation is that an air source heat pump would not work well here, at considerably higher cost than the gas furnace when installing is included in the comparison. Air source probably not working well is why I talked about drilling (each paragraph is a topic; water heating in the first and home heating in the second...).
My expectation is that an air source heat pump would not work well here, at considerably higher cost than the gas furnace when installing is included in the comparison. Air source probably not working well is why I talked about drilling (each paragraph is a topic; water heating in the first and home heating in the second...).
Heat pump is how air conditioners work, a heat pump that heats works in reverse. There's no drilling needed, that would be geothermal.
Heat pump water heaters do save about half the cost in electricity over a conventional resistive-only water heater, and are optimal for places with basements, as they also dehumidify; or in warm climates, as they cool the air. So it's also useful for long term perishable storage like a root cellar would be, or in a laundry room. They do cost 3x as much, though.
Residential heat pumps for heating and cooling in the US is relatively new, and I've had nothing but problems with mine - so much so that I just received a full refund on the purchase price of my unit because of manufacturing "defects".
Heat pump water heaters do save about half the cost in electricity over a conventional resistive-only water heater, and are optimal for places with basements, as they also dehumidify; or in warm climates, as they cool the air. So it's also useful for long term perishable storage like a root cellar would be, or in a laundry room. They do cost 3x as much, though.
Residential heat pumps for heating and cooling in the US is relatively new, and I've had nothing but problems with mine - so much so that I just received a full refund on the purchase price of my unit because of manufacturing "defects".
What kinds of issues did you have with your heat pump? Was it the unit itself, installation? And where do you live?
It's unfortunate that the heat pump ecosystem isn't as developed as it should be. Feels kind of like installing Linux vs buying a Mac — not so seamless.
It's unfortunate that the heat pump ecosystem isn't as developed as it should be. Feels kind of like installing Linux vs buying a Mac — not so seamless.
Ground source heat pump is a better term than geothermal, because it is harder to confuse with other types of system.
Only if you believe the phony math.
One of the most famous speeches in American history:
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - Kennedy
I believe that fighting climate change is a problem of similiar magnitude to going to the moon in 1969, and smaller than winning WWII. We did both of those things, we can do this. But we have to want to.
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - Kennedy
I believe that fighting climate change is a problem of similiar magnitude to going to the moon in 1969, and smaller than winning WWII. We did both of those things, we can do this. But we have to want to.
Come on. The US did not go to the moon because millions of Americans banded together and sacrificed around a single goal. The US went to the moon because the government felt capitalism was losing the PR battle to communism (Soviets) and so decided to pour money into it because they didn’t want to look bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race
A majority of Americans opposed the Apollo program. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/a-maj...
A majority of Americans support action on climate change.
A majority of Americans support action on climate change.
"Action on climate change" very vague... mostly that is "get more electricity from renewable, maybe get an electric car". It is nothing that reduces the quality of life, that is supported from very few people, almost none. There is reasons the answer to how to fund is always "make the rich pay", Americans do not like paying for stuff.
That speech is just fluff, feel-good PR written by a professional speech writer.
US wished to flex its muscles since it was losing the space race to the Soviet Union. If the pure-Communists can beat you in an advanced tech area, then there is something wrong with pure capitalism.
When the Chinese start leading the pack in green initiatives and propagandising their efforts, the US will hard-press the accelerator.
Competition is the essence and core of the human spirit.
US wished to flex its muscles since it was losing the space race to the Soviet Union. If the pure-Communists can beat you in an advanced tech area, then there is something wrong with pure capitalism.
When the Chinese start leading the pack in green initiatives and propagandising their efforts, the US will hard-press the accelerator.
Competition is the essence and core of the human spirit.
Which is exactly the problem, the generations of Americans who actually wanted to and were capable of doing great things is long gone. We have since been trained by sociopaths to believe only in sociopathy, to only look out for our own interests and eat our fellow man if it betters our lot, and that this is righteous and good. We have systematically dismantled their great works.
If we bank on the will of the American people we are surely doomed.
If we bank on the will of the American people we are surely doomed.
This is nostalgia; for every American in the past that dreamed of great things, there is a Snopes, Salem, McCarthy
FWIW the government and media were full of communists, McCarthy wasn’t wrong, he just had bad tactics.
> Americans (and Australians) will never accept any changes that negatively impact their lives or wallets. Especially when the consequences of climate change are not clear and present. As democracies, we will simply vote out any government that asks us to change our ways
I'm at a loss for words here. The most lauded Australian prime minister of the last 30 years is the one that banned firearms, dragged Australia into the Middle East, started offshore detention and introduced a value-added tax on everything from drinks to tampons. People have literally been elected on promises of destroying internet infrastructure.
The problem Australia has is exclusively to do with every single political group (including the Greens) being anti-environmental and peddling conspiracy theories about things like nuclear and hydroelectric. It has nothing to do with what Australians will or won't accept -- Australia has arguably the world's most docile, suggestible population. It has everything to do with political incompetence and an extreme, unhinged focus on being electable.
> I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change, and that they are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Australians have endured some of the longest, strictest lockdowns, and are on track to have one of the world's highest vaccination rates.
I'm really not sure why you seem to be pinning this on the population.
I'm at a loss for words here. The most lauded Australian prime minister of the last 30 years is the one that banned firearms, dragged Australia into the Middle East, started offshore detention and introduced a value-added tax on everything from drinks to tampons. People have literally been elected on promises of destroying internet infrastructure.
The problem Australia has is exclusively to do with every single political group (including the Greens) being anti-environmental and peddling conspiracy theories about things like nuclear and hydroelectric. It has nothing to do with what Australians will or won't accept -- Australia has arguably the world's most docile, suggestible population. It has everything to do with political incompetence and an extreme, unhinged focus on being electable.
> I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change, and that they are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Australians have endured some of the longest, strictest lockdowns, and are on track to have one of the world's highest vaccination rates.
I'm really not sure why you seem to be pinning this on the population.
I often feel like democracy has failed us. We have elected trash leaders.
My perspective of democracy was that it was to protect us against both unjust rulers and ineffective rulers. The end result was instead of potential kings/rulers fighting each other directly as they did in ancient times, they fight each other indirectly by trying to get votes. They are not much different then previous era's....
Is it really this hard to get a wise ruler who both cares about the well being of humans and can take the long term view? Someone who can tell fact from fiction.
My perspective of democracy was that it was to protect us against both unjust rulers and ineffective rulers. The end result was instead of potential kings/rulers fighting each other directly as they did in ancient times, they fight each other indirectly by trying to get votes. They are not much different then previous era's....
Is it really this hard to get a wise ruler who both cares about the well being of humans and can take the long term view? Someone who can tell fact from fiction.
> Is it really this hard to get a wise ruler who both cares about the well being of humans and can take the long term view? Someone who can tell fact from fiction.
Most of them "can", but the ones who "will" get weeded out early or are made out to be lepers (Ralph Nader comes to mind).
Most of them "can", but the ones who "will" get weeded out early or are made out to be lepers (Ralph Nader comes to mind).
>I'm really not sure why you seem to be pinning this on the population.
I think both major parties are dragging their feet on climate because any sacrifices they ask people to make will lose them the election. Covid is different because it has not been an election issue.
I'm pinning it on us, because who else is there.
I think both major parties are dragging their feet on climate because any sacrifices they ask people to make will lose them the election. Covid is different because it has not been an election issue.
I'm pinning it on us, because who else is there.
We would all need to basically live an Amish lifestyle. Not many will do it willingly. We really need some breakthrough like fusion.
we need some breakthroughs but don’t need to live like amish. Heat pumps, nuclear, solar panels, electric cars, urbanization that promotes walkability, all exist and go a long way. We need plenty of breakthroughs, lots of help from policy as well, but already have much of what we need to get pretty far along.
Everything you described requires the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Being Amish would not :)
Not interested in living like a serf because your religion tells you we need to sacrifice our lifestyles.
Well that’s not true, they do accept changes that negatively impact their lives, it just has to come from Mother Nature.
And not until years later -- stopping eating beef would be tomorrow
Lifestyle changes are going to be inevitable, one way or the other.
I don't think that's a given for people alive today. Climate change happens on a global scale, not a human scale. People wont "feel" it's change.
I'm happy to make sacrifices, but a lot of vocal people are not.
We need to stop talking about "making sacrifices". We need to get people excited about the amazing opportunities all this work provides us.
It's exciting to me that we need to replant our forests. We have new power plants to build. New desalination plants! New farming technologies!
So much work in so many industries, it can be an exciting time of growth if you ask me!
I'm happy to make sacrifices, but a lot of vocal people are not.
We need to stop talking about "making sacrifices". We need to get people excited about the amazing opportunities all this work provides us.
It's exciting to me that we need to replant our forests. We have new power plants to build. New desalination plants! New farming technologies!
So much work in so many industries, it can be an exciting time of growth if you ask me!
> People wont "feel" it's change.
Oh, but 'people' feel its change. You feel it.
But it is all secondary, or even further away. Coffee is more expensive. Gas (CNG) prices is already costing many households more in these summer months. Gasoline prices are at record hights. Water is increasing in price. Electricity prices are at record heights (which, is increasing my IT infrastructure bills). In many regions we cannot get certain potatoes doe to crops failing. And so on.
You see the effects, when you look for em. In your wallet. On your table. In your bottom lines and revenues.
So, aside from the opportunities we may see, there are effects having impact on average peoples live this very moment
Oh, but 'people' feel its change. You feel it.
But it is all secondary, or even further away. Coffee is more expensive. Gas (CNG) prices is already costing many households more in these summer months. Gasoline prices are at record hights. Water is increasing in price. Electricity prices are at record heights (which, is increasing my IT infrastructure bills). In many regions we cannot get certain potatoes doe to crops failing. And so on.
You see the effects, when you look for em. In your wallet. On your table. In your bottom lines and revenues.
So, aside from the opportunities we may see, there are effects having impact on average peoples live this very moment
It is happening – China has been imposing power curb throughout the whole country. Since I work in manufacturing, I can see the cost of everything is rising, i.e. metals, chemicals, and even shipping fee.
Now the consumers won't feel these because the whole supply chain is still absorbing the cost. But the effects will eventually it will get to individuals in various forms.
And there lies the difference that made my grandparents generation, albeit on the Allied side of WW2, the greatest generation. Not the willingness to go to war, that was enforced by drafts all over the globe back then. It was rather the total revamping of the economy, industry and society to support the war against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. The UK went to rationing, and still people carried on in global struggle. The US produced all of three cars between 41 and 45 (I d have to look up sources here...). And don't even think about the hardships the USSR went through.
And here we are, pampered boomers and millenials, in a society so selfish and profit and status oriented that we are not willing to accept the slightest inconveniences, or god forbid tax increase, to tackle one of the biggest challenges we ever faced.
And here we are, pampered boomers and millenials, in a society so selfish and profit and status oriented that we are not willing to accept the slightest inconveniences, or god forbid tax increase, to tackle one of the biggest challenges we ever faced.
> And there lies the difference that made my grandparents generation, albeit on the Allied side of WW2, the greatest generation.
The US was pushed into the war by Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was in favor of joining the war effort directly but faced isolationist opposition at home. The best he could do was the lend-lease agreement with the UK, which was a hard bargain in the US’s favor.
After the war was joined it was sustained by a massive domestic propaganda campaign (all those iconic WW2 posters? Propaganda)
WW2 and the cold-war era space program represent the zenith of technocratic government in the west. What we have seen since is in many ways 50+ years of failure: social unrest, Vietnam war, inflation, terrorism, more war, financial crisis, pandemic. The government has seemed to be unprepared for all of those. While it’s not what I believe personally, I can understand if someone thinks that government will fail to meet the complex challenge of climate change.
The legislative branch of the US government is so thoroughly disordered that it can effectively pass one single piece of legislation per year through the budget reconciliation process. We trust this group of people and this process to solve climate change, when it will not even take up the more targeted and effective proposals such as a carbon tax?
The US was pushed into the war by Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was in favor of joining the war effort directly but faced isolationist opposition at home. The best he could do was the lend-lease agreement with the UK, which was a hard bargain in the US’s favor.
After the war was joined it was sustained by a massive domestic propaganda campaign (all those iconic WW2 posters? Propaganda)
WW2 and the cold-war era space program represent the zenith of technocratic government in the west. What we have seen since is in many ways 50+ years of failure: social unrest, Vietnam war, inflation, terrorism, more war, financial crisis, pandemic. The government has seemed to be unprepared for all of those. While it’s not what I believe personally, I can understand if someone thinks that government will fail to meet the complex challenge of climate change.
The legislative branch of the US government is so thoroughly disordered that it can effectively pass one single piece of legislation per year through the budget reconciliation process. We trust this group of people and this process to solve climate change, when it will not even take up the more targeted and effective proposals such as a carbon tax?
It was easier for our grand grand parents to understand the issue. A global war is something that hits you on the head, you and everyone else. Climate change doesn't do that. Second, after the war (and before too) life was harder than it is to day, you had to work together. Then the sixties came in with lots of oil and all the richness. So people were just leaving the hardship of pas decades and entering a world where everything was much easier. We are the product of those years. We were born in an easier world (at least in western europe, where several countries had access to their late colonies on top of that)). So I'm afraid we don't know much about working together. We'll have to learn that again.
Hopefully, we could have a very big energy crisis. Unlike COVID, energy price rise affects everyone directly, it's not like "I know somebody who..." (unfortunately, the poorer are hit harder). This would affect everyone and would lead to some social unrest. Not that I wish social unrest, but that is a signal that can't be ignored, even though it is a very slippy slope.
Interestingly, the current spike in gas prices down here puts a lot of politicians in panic mode. Gas price, unlike covid, is the result of human negotiator; you can't invoke "bad luck" or "nature's revenge" or whatever....
Hopefully, we could have a very big energy crisis. Unlike COVID, energy price rise affects everyone directly, it's not like "I know somebody who..." (unfortunately, the poorer are hit harder). This would affect everyone and would lead to some social unrest. Not that I wish social unrest, but that is a signal that can't be ignored, even though it is a very slippy slope.
Interestingly, the current spike in gas prices down here puts a lot of politicians in panic mode. Gas price, unlike covid, is the result of human negotiator; you can't invoke "bad luck" or "nature's revenge" or whatever....
we went into war only with reluctance after pearl harbor because japs were blowing our shit up... population was otherwise coming off a long period of isolationism and would not have fought, i think. considerably easier to deal with global warming than that: we have a wide range of latitudes where we can grow crops, lots of natural resources, can throw money at the problem. no need to destroy our lifestyle today
tomrod(1)
Sometimes I wish climate change was a person, or an idea, that threatened capitalism rather than a scientific phenomenon so that the American propaganda machine would take action to mobilize the American people. Unfortunately, this is not the reality we live in.
The US government has a problem with wasteful spending, not collecting enough money. Higher taxes will just mean more waste.
> Higher taxes will just mean more waste.
Nope. Even if 50% of US taxes are "wasted" on things manigandham doesn't care about, it doesn't follow that increasing taxes would simply all be diverted to things manigandham doesn't care about and thus "wasted".
Nope. Even if 50% of US taxes are "wasted" on things manigandham doesn't care about, it doesn't follow that increasing taxes would simply all be diverted to things manigandham doesn't care about and thus "wasted".
That's not how ratios work. If 50% is wasted then 50% of new funds would still increase the overall amount.
And waste is defined as money spent that doesn't reach any goals, or even make any progress towards them. It's a very common topic on HN about startups spending capital poorly, and likewise profligate spending can be found everywhere in (US) government. $2T in a decades-long war is a recent example, including the hundreds of billions in equipment and resources left behind.
But surely, you knew what I meant. I wonder how much climate change progress could've been made with all that money. Feel free to donate more with your next tax payment if you want.
And waste is defined as money spent that doesn't reach any goals, or even make any progress towards them. It's a very common topic on HN about startups spending capital poorly, and likewise profligate spending can be found everywhere in (US) government. $2T in a decades-long war is a recent example, including the hundreds of billions in equipment and resources left behind.
But surely, you knew what I meant. I wonder how much climate change progress could've been made with all that money. Feel free to donate more with your next tax payment if you want.
There are two problem here, you are conflating them:
1. Government spend on stupid shit like welfare and all the stuff in Paul's Festivus report,
2. Government spend inefficiently paying lot of buraucrats between when dollars are taken in and when they leave goernment.
1. Government spend on stupid shit like welfare and all the stuff in Paul's Festivus report,
2. Government spend inefficiently paying lot of buraucrats between when dollars are taken in and when they leave goernment.
[deleted]
I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change
Really? I think Covid-19 showed just how readily people are willing to subject themselves to humiliation and medical experimentation because of a disease whose headline kill rate is low, and whose practical kill rate is abysmal (ie, for the non-nursing home set). Shrug. When the establishment actually decides on the pastoralization of the Western world, they will get it the next day.
Really? I think Covid-19 showed just how readily people are willing to subject themselves to humiliation and medical experimentation because of a disease whose headline kill rate is low, and whose practical kill rate is abysmal (ie, for the non-nursing home set). Shrug. When the establishment actually decides on the pastoralization of the Western world, they will get it the next day.
But these are the same leaders who pushed ACA as a right, and then completely failed to mention that with rights come responsibilities (i.e., personal health). ACA hasn't made us any healthier and even in the middle of a pandemic we continue to blame the healthcare system, even when the data says otherwise.
https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...
It's not just to blame the people for not sacrificing when there are - and rightfully so - trust issues. There's simply not enough historical evidence to support trusting Uncle Sam and his ilk. I'm not advocating that, simply showing empathy for those who - again rightfully so - remain suspect of a political and media system that has its best interests in mind first, and WTP a distant second.
Keep shopping.
https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...
It's not just to blame the people for not sacrificing when there are - and rightfully so - trust issues. There's simply not enough historical evidence to support trusting Uncle Sam and his ilk. I'm not advocating that, simply showing empathy for those who - again rightfully so - remain suspect of a political and media system that has its best interests in mind first, and WTP a distant second.
Keep shopping.
Probably a good idea to stop pointing to specific weather events as evidence of impending doom, because for all of their specific destructiveness, they have had essentially no impact on humanity’s general way of life.
I’m not saying hurricanes and droughts and floods aren’t bad, nor that they won’t get worse, but if you set the bar for catastrophe at the current level, a lot of people are going to decide they can easily live with that.
I’m not saying hurricanes and droughts and floods aren’t bad, nor that they won’t get worse, but if you set the bar for catastrophe at the current level, a lot of people are going to decide they can easily live with that.
Climate activists always tell me “weather is not climate” from one side of their mouth while also screaming about extreme weather events as proof of climate doom from the other - I just started tuning it all out.
From my understanding it is almost certainly a lost cause at this point. I am not a scientist so I do not know for certain, but from what I have read at this stage even if we halt greenhouse gas emissions to zero it still won't be enough to stop the drastic changes to the Earth caused by high CO2 levels. We would have to actively removing CO2 to have any sort of chance at preventing the worse problems associated with Global Warming. Not to mention the amount of other pollutants we have released such as plastic/ microplastic that have been and continue to, disturb the ecosystem of our planet.
“Lost cause” makes it seem as if nothing we can do will help. But that isn’t true. There is a lot we could do that will make the world of 2100 and 2200 better than if we continue doing things as we’ve done them.
The real problem is that politicians are unwilling to act. But there’s no shortage of action we could take.
The real problem is that politicians are unwilling to act. But there’s no shortage of action we could take.
Human beings have been going down this path since the start of civilization. Human beings have been acting like this since we have had hierarchies of power and wealth. For us to solve the climate issue would require us as a species to do a complete 180. At that point we won't even be human anymore, which is why I say it is a lot cause. I assume the criteria for a solution to climate change has always included our survival as a species, but if it doesn't then I agree with the idea that it isn't a lost cause.
[deleted]
There's a scale to the catastrophe that's coming, and that's still within our control.
Like using more nuclear power ?
Nuclear power can't come online fast enough. We shouldn't needlessly decommission plants like Germany did.
There's an opportunity cost here - we need to make "power plant factories" rather than just "power plants". So if we could make green energy factories and nuke plant factories, that would be better than making one off nuke plants that take so long to get approved.
There's an opportunity cost here - we need to make "power plant factories" rather than just "power plants". So if we could make green energy factories and nuke plant factories, that would be better than making one off nuke plants that take so long to get approved.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. By continuing to oppose low-carbon base load power that is politically unpopular, climate activists are showing the world that they don't really believe there's a crisis.
Put another way, they are saying: "there's just enough of a crisis for us to take things from you, but not enough for us to sacrifice anything ourselves."
Also, with investment in nuclear plants, the cost and time to build one will decrease, but someone needs to put up the money to make that happen.
Put another way, they are saying: "there's just enough of a crisis for us to take things from you, but not enough for us to sacrifice anything ourselves."
Also, with investment in nuclear plants, the cost and time to build one will decrease, but someone needs to put up the money to make that happen.
> By continuing to oppose low-carbon base load power that is politically unpopular, climate activists are showing the world that they don't really believe there's a crisis.
That's okay, who cares if some old hippies don't believe in an obvious scientific fact. We all believe it's true, right? And that's what matters, yes?
Because the people who deny that climate change would be a crisis if we don't stop emitting fossil carbon are absolute idiots, at least we can all agree on that much.
That's okay, who cares if some old hippies don't believe in an obvious scientific fact. We all believe it's true, right? And that's what matters, yes?
Because the people who deny that climate change would be a crisis if we don't stop emitting fossil carbon are absolute idiots, at least we can all agree on that much.
I would suggest (as is commonly accepted) that building new nuclear is a net-negative for climate change (due to high cost that could have been spent on renewables, efficiency or other related stuff that would have more impact) but I'm not against keeping nuclear plants open if they are within their lifetime.
Having said that, I've never seen an actual solid argument that Germany rushed their nuclear phase-out.
It usually ends at "they're phasing out nuclear, they still burn coal, they're idiots" yet if you look at a graph of their carbon intensity, it's going down at roughly the same speed as their neighbours and there's no obvious blip from the nuclear phase out. If anything, the fact that they still have coal means they've got a few easy wins left as they phase those out. (This holds true even when accounting for carbon imports/exports).
But the whole "carbon tax" thing is about lots of small changes adding up to make an effective difference. Germany appears to be achieving this even with apparent oddities like nuclear and coal. Maybe those were the political cost of doing all the rest of the stuff.
Having said that, I've never seen an actual solid argument that Germany rushed their nuclear phase-out.
It usually ends at "they're phasing out nuclear, they still burn coal, they're idiots" yet if you look at a graph of their carbon intensity, it's going down at roughly the same speed as their neighbours and there's no obvious blip from the nuclear phase out. If anything, the fact that they still have coal means they've got a few easy wins left as they phase those out. (This holds true even when accounting for carbon imports/exports).
But the whole "carbon tax" thing is about lots of small changes adding up to make an effective difference. Germany appears to be achieving this even with apparent oddities like nuclear and coal. Maybe those were the political cost of doing all the rest of the stuff.
A simple tax on fossil fuels raising the price of fuel to $10 is $20 per gallon should do nicely. If not, keep going up.
To prevent it affecting poor people disproportionately, give poorer people cash.
To prevent it affecting poor people disproportionately, give poorer people cash.
>Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the past year of climate catastrophes has shown us anything, it’s high time we act.
This same rhetoric has been repeated for decades, and has continually received the same, hostile response from the public and politicians.
I'm not arguing that it's wrong or untruthful, but alarmist statements like this are a demonstrably poor tool for rousing the public into action and creating real change.
Why do climate activists continually insist on using persuasive techniques that are proven to not work?
This same rhetoric has been repeated for decades, and has continually received the same, hostile response from the public and politicians.
I'm not arguing that it's wrong or untruthful, but alarmist statements like this are a demonstrably poor tool for rousing the public into action and creating real change.
Why do climate activists continually insist on using persuasive techniques that are proven to not work?
But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!” even if some people in a separate part of the building (not touched by the fire yet) insist that the growing heat is due to something else, God has it in control and would never set the fire, in fact the people yelling out the warnings are just being “alarmist”, it’s against their constitutional rights etc? We really don’t have time at the moment to resort to gentle persuasion techniques (on a group I might add who are ready to never become convinced because they dismiss every rational argument and all the data). It may not work in a country as politically divided as the US, but trying to convince (the right especially) will achieve nothing but waste time that could be better spent elsewhere. Those who are not persuaded at this point are not going to be just because we approach them with more gentleness or empathy or whatever.
Even if we could convince people that they must get moving and that the fire is real, people will be frozen in discussion over which path of escape is best. Maybe they should use the fire escape, or reach the roof, or take the window, or maybe that fire extinguishers but then the question if the kitchen or the basement is closer. Alternative they will argue that the best method might be to wait for a firefighter and do what they do. If we follow the analog further we would also have people arguing about which people is responsible to fight the fire, who deserve the take the blame, who should be faced with the consequence, whose parent designed the building, whose people is responsible for voting those who made the building regulations, who owns most properties, and finally who invaded whom a few hundred years ago. All while standing inside the ongoing fire.
I honestly don't know what can be done.
I honestly don't know what can be done.
It would be considered alarmist to yell fire to people who had no concept of fire, and if the actual flames were years or decades away.
They won’t thank you until after they see someone being burned.
They won’t thank you until after they see someone being burned.
But in this case wouldn’t it be more like they keep seeing people around them being burnt to death all the time, and you have a pretty solid theory of why this happens / how to predict the next burn victims, but they keep insisting it’s actually spontaneous combustion and you’re just being “alarmist” with your predictions of further (and even worse) burnings?
Well the catastrophic ends of climate change are just that… ends.
Right now we have had effects but it’s all akin to feeling heat, or coughing from smoke but not actually being burned. Also the heat and smoke randomly shifts to other people so it isn’t consistently hurting anyone.
What’s worse is that we either all escape the building together or we all die together. No one can just choose to believe the theory of the unseen flame and get out alive on their own.
Right now we have had effects but it’s all akin to feeling heat, or coughing from smoke but not actually being burned. Also the heat and smoke randomly shifts to other people so it isn’t consistently hurting anyone.
What’s worse is that we either all escape the building together or we all die together. No one can just choose to believe the theory of the unseen flame and get out alive on their own.
>But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!”
OK, I did use the wrong word there (looking it up, "alarmism" carries different connotations to what I thought), but frankly that's beside the point.
If you want to enact real change (getting people out of the building), and yelling at them about how they're going to die for 4 hours straight has been ineffective, perhaps it's time to try a different strategy.
OK, I did use the wrong word there (looking it up, "alarmism" carries different connotations to what I thought), but frankly that's beside the point.
If you want to enact real change (getting people out of the building), and yelling at them about how they're going to die for 4 hours straight has been ineffective, perhaps it's time to try a different strategy.
Alarmist statements DO seem to work though looking at the previous term’s statements on immigration.
There has to be tons of reasons it’s not working in this case, but I don’t think it’s the alarmist portrayal. I suspect it should be far more alarming.
There has to be tons of reasons it’s not working in this case, but I don’t think it’s the alarmist portrayal. I suspect it should be far more alarming.
In the Canadian federal election a couple of weeks ago, 95% of votes went to parties that had a carbon tax of some sort in their platform.
Canadians aren't very different from Americans. It can be done.
Canadians aren't very different from Americans. It can be done.
The people are similar, yes. The underlying socioeconomic and sociopolitical systems are likely different tho'. We (i.e., the USA) too often talk a good game, but the actions are disconnected.
Just one example, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't what most believe it is. The targets aren't tight enough, and there's nothing binding. Compliance is voluntary. Yet it has been and continues to be heralded as essential. An essential paper tiger?
Per Naomi Klein
https://www.wnyc.org/story/coveringclimatenow-naomi-klein-gr...
Of course there are other examples.
Just one example, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't what most believe it is. The targets aren't tight enough, and there's nothing binding. Compliance is voluntary. Yet it has been and continues to be heralded as essential. An essential paper tiger?
Per Naomi Klein
https://www.wnyc.org/story/coveringclimatenow-naomi-klein-gr...
Of course there are other examples.
I agree the US is a bit more oligarchic than other similar nations, but not sure what the Paris climate accord examples proves?
America was the main holdout, and it wasnt because they thought it wasn't effective enough, quite the opposite. So yes its pretty vital that we do at least that much.
America was the main holdout, and it wasnt because they thought it wasn't effective enough, quite the opposite. So yes its pretty vital that we do at least that much.
It proves this...it was sold as a major accomplishment. It was sold as one of that POTUS' defining moments. And it wasn't any of that. The USA held it up. The USA made sure it had no teeth.
So the talk was "We're so great" the reality is that's BS.
So the talk was "We're so great" the reality is that's BS.
How many Canadians are there in the CCP leadership? China is around 30% of the globes emissions, Canada is 1.5%.
Alarmist statements are not going to do anything to Chinese policy. The only thing that is going to work is having a technically better source of energy to move to.
Alarmist statements are not going to do anything to Chinese policy. The only thing that is going to work is having a technically better source of energy to move to.
There is a straight forward (but not easy) solution to the China problem. It's called the carbon club, and William Nordhaus won the Nobel Memorial prize for his paper on it. Germany is currently leading the charge to get one set up.
The EU has a pretty history of forcing their citizens foot the bill for lazy corporations failure to do anything in the interest of society or humanity. The most recent example was when they(Germans, EU) was pushing for a digitalization tax so that corporations could have the tax payer foot the bill for their failure to invest money into themselves rather than funeling it out. There are countless examples of this happening in institutions within Germany that used to be public and were half privatized.
Carbon tax is yet another one of these examples where the tax payer has been sold on the idea that they have to foot the bill for the big corps selfishness.
Completely absurd that these things are even presented as a solution. As for China being a problem? I think all the people that worked decades to push everything to China with complete disregard for anything share some blame?
And then at the same time the IAEA was actually supposed to be an institution to help the world forward in safe nuclear energy development.
Talking about Chinas carbon footprint, while ignoring why it's the worlds biggest polluter is kinda how we kept saying how horrible their and some other countries in the areas ocean trash pollution is while omitting that we were the ones shipping our trash there.
But yes, this is the past and now it's different, but just erasing history doesn't give a good ground for a constructive discussion.
And re: carbon club and China, Germany will never defy China. It's their biggest importer. In the end it's all rhetoric. They just recently released a statement how they want to discuss the Xinjiang issue on mutual understanding. They spent a decade promising other countries to setup a parallel remittance system, which never materialized. It's all talk and no substance
Carbon tax is yet another one of these examples where the tax payer has been sold on the idea that they have to foot the bill for the big corps selfishness.
Completely absurd that these things are even presented as a solution. As for China being a problem? I think all the people that worked decades to push everything to China with complete disregard for anything share some blame?
And then at the same time the IAEA was actually supposed to be an institution to help the world forward in safe nuclear energy development.
Talking about Chinas carbon footprint, while ignoring why it's the worlds biggest polluter is kinda how we kept saying how horrible their and some other countries in the areas ocean trash pollution is while omitting that we were the ones shipping our trash there.
But yes, this is the past and now it's different, but just erasing history doesn't give a good ground for a constructive discussion.
And re: carbon club and China, Germany will never defy China. It's their biggest importer. In the end it's all rhetoric. They just recently released a statement how they want to discuss the Xinjiang issue on mutual understanding. They spent a decade promising other countries to setup a parallel remittance system, which never materialized. It's all talk and no substance
i disagree that it would have efficacy, china already is trying to build parallel economic system if needed with cultivation of economic relation in south america and africa. china setting herself up to be to those continents as we were to her, will survive without any carbon membership.
You know what those emissions in China are for right? China is the factory of the world, they build the things that we consume.
So applying a carbon tax in Canada will make those goods more expensive and reduce the demand, reducing China's footprint.
A carbon tax without tariffs would not work. The big question is if Canada can impose such tariffs that locally produced low-carbon emitting products has a economical advantage over those produced and later shipped from china.
Climate change news reminds me of that "truck almost hitting a pole" meme [1]. I know it's a growing problem that will likely mean big, uncomfortable changes, but the constant crisis rhetoric is just exhausting. I'm GenX so I've been hearing this every day of my life for decades. Right in that awkward age between the generation that doesn't care even in the slightest about Climate Change and the generation that thinks it's the worst problem the world has ever faced.
Politicians my age are slowly seeping into power now. If Climate Change activists want to convince them, constant Dialed-up-to-10 alarmism is just not the way they're going to do it.
1: https://imgur.com/r/gifs/kuplW0m
Politicians my age are slowly seeping into power now. If Climate Change activists want to convince them, constant Dialed-up-to-10 alarmism is just not the way they're going to do it.
1: https://imgur.com/r/gifs/kuplW0m
Well, thing is the alternative is absolutely possible, and we’re seeing it: people getting more expensive energy prices, mosquitoes appear in regions where they traditionally weren’t, causing health issues, insurance premiums increasing, coverage decreased for some types of events (here in Chicago insurance don’t cover for flooding of your basement). Small steps are certainly being taken by nature to make everything significantly more expansive and less comfortable than they should be. But hey, people who could influence this have the money to cover for that so let’s remain on the status quo a little longer.
Are you suggesting that basement flooding in Chicago is due to climate change?
I agree. Alarmist rhetoric since at least the mid-1980s. We've made massive progress on environmental issues since then, but still the same alarmist rhetoric.
> We've made massive progress on environmental issues
Care to elaborate? Afaic, global CO2 emissions keep going up year after year.
Care to elaborate? Afaic, global CO2 emissions keep going up year after year.
Not GP, but in other areas (chemical pollution, CFCs, recycling, sustainable forestry) we've definitely made improvements since then. Global warming seems to be a particularly tough nut to crack.
Additionally, we’re dramatically more energy efficient across the board; food, transport, goods.
[deleted]
You're victim blaming.
What an utterly useless statement. What are you suggesting we do instead, downplay the danger and hope someone will eventually do something?
You know, if someone predicted the apocalypse was right around the corner, and the only way to avert it was to dramatically change my lifestyle in a way that was orthogonal to the catastrophe...
I'd say you're peddling religion. Especially if I don't change, and the doomsday prophecies fail. (Again, and again, and again...)
I'd say you're peddling religion. Especially if I don't change, and the doomsday prophecies fail. (Again, and again, and again...)
There's been 50 years of climate catastrophe predictions and the one constant is that [everyone] passionate about it has a wicked case of confirmation bias.
The climate scientists generally haven't been doing the catastrophe predictions. If you go back and read the early IPCC reports, it's not like they were predicting the end of the world was nigh. In fact, they still don't predict that. What they do predict is severe consequences that will have high adaptation costs if we don't limit the amount of warming. They don't predict the end of humanity, but just a big cost to humanity.
The activism comes from people who misrepresent the science. The skepticism also comes from people who misrepresent the science. The public debate is almost orthogonal to what the actual science in the IPCC reports says.
To give an example, the IPCC AR5 (2013) report says this:
"More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region."
An activist picks out the second part and ignores the first. A skeptic picks out the first part and ignores the second. They battle it out, each citing "the science", and both are lying by omission. And that's the best case scenario. Often what gets cited isn't even in the IPCC reports, and of a lineage which is more dubious.
Which is why, if you want to have an informed opinion on the climate, you should ignore the media, ignore the talking heads, and read the IPCC reports.
The activism comes from people who misrepresent the science. The skepticism also comes from people who misrepresent the science. The public debate is almost orthogonal to what the actual science in the IPCC reports says.
To give an example, the IPCC AR5 (2013) report says this:
"More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region."
An activist picks out the second part and ignores the first. A skeptic picks out the first part and ignores the second. They battle it out, each citing "the science", and both are lying by omission. And that's the best case scenario. Often what gets cited isn't even in the IPCC reports, and of a lineage which is more dubious.
Which is why, if you want to have an informed opinion on the climate, you should ignore the media, ignore the talking heads, and read the IPCC reports.
Also constant is the fact that the catastrophe continues to unfold at a rate that falls neatly into the uncanny valley between "slow and marginal enough that most human beings can't seem to comprehend it as a catastrophe" (possibly reflected in your comment) and "fast enough at geological and ecological time scales that human beings have fewer tools for predicting what the hell is actually going to happen" (but some of the possibilities look ugly enough to be alarming).
Catastrophic events are happening you just live in a country that can deal with it-for now at least.
This summer we saw floods kill people in Germany and Belgium while in the Netherlands nobody died because it spent a fuck ton of money on flood defences.
This summer we saw floods kill people in Germany and Belgium while in the Netherlands nobody died because it spent a fuck ton of money on flood defences.
Solutions like that are described in great details in a book False Alarm. It was the first book about climate change (for me) that demonstrated how one can agree with the idea of changing climate, yet approach the problem with a level head and practical solutions. Can't recommend highly enough.
The flood mitigation that the Dutch have implemented is just unbelievably impressive.
Another drastic emergency rationalizing further government largess. Take a few steps back from the minutiae of the arguments for catastrophic warming. Leave that to the side if you can.
Is there anything more hysterical than an appeal to apocalypse?
Have we seen this pattern before, where fear is used to rationalize expanded governance?
Is there anything more hysterical than an appeal to apocalypse?
Have we seen this pattern before, where fear is used to rationalize expanded governance?
assume you do not have damage to the planet as any inherent value. assume also that in rich nation like America we will probably muddle through. this is case of higher risk tolerance, i am unwilling to make a reduced quality of life now for a hedge against the future.
Let's see. Maybe we start with a 90% tax above 100K income to pay for climate change costs? Will that be acceptable inconvenience to folks here.
Given the effects of tax-funded wars on drugs, poverty, terrorism, etc., I'm in - as long as the money is spent on war against Earth, i.e. earnest efforts to make it heat up faster. I'm pretty sure we only need a few $Tn and 20 years to achieve cooling ;)
[deleted]
Sure, if you get billionaires to pay it, too.
You are willing to pay only if someone more wealthy that you pays, but you expect people who scrape for a living to pay more for their energy and fuel expenses because it's just a mild inconvenience for the greater good?
》Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the past year of climate catastrophes has shown us anything, it’s high time we act.
This is the battle cry of those who have surrendered to fear and are willing to trade freedom for oppression.
This is the battle cry of those who have surrendered to fear and are willing to trade freedom for oppression.
That's what a large fraction of the winners on /r/hermancainaward say in regard to pretty much anyone wanting to take any measures against COVID.
It's the battle cry of those who think that a problem isn't real or will just go away on its own with little harm if we ignore it.
That doesn't work, and the longer the problem is ignored before dealing with it the more disruptive and intrusive the action needed becomes.
It's the battle cry of those who think that a problem isn't real or will just go away on its own with little harm if we ignore it.
That doesn't work, and the longer the problem is ignored before dealing with it the more disruptive and intrusive the action needed becomes.
> it’s high time we act
> it’s time we suck it up
Who are those "we" exactly? And why the other people have to pay for that desperate stuff?
Hint: you could go out and plant a tree instead.
> it’s time we suck it up
Who are those "we" exactly? And why the other people have to pay for that desperate stuff?
Hint: you could go out and plant a tree instead.
This article, per usual, is creating a completely false narrative. Just by opposing a particular bill that is ostensibly aimed at controlling the climate does not mean you are opposed to all actions aligned with that bills outward goals.
Not just that, but the article doesn't even mention until halfway in that this bill is a 3.5TN budget bill, very much full of other non-climate proposals. Most people will read and comment on the title.
This has to be one of the most reprehensible pieces of flat-out propaganda I’ve seen from The Guardian.
Literally in the second paragraph:
> oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats
That makes it pretty clear to me that it's a $3.5TN budget bill. Also, that sentence is a link, so it's underlined. Difficult to miss.
> oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats
That makes it pretty clear to me that it's a $3.5TN budget bill. Also, that sentence is a link, so it's underlined. Difficult to miss.
I think the key part of the parent post is "very much full of other non-climate proposals", not the 3.5 number.
The title of the piece leaves little room for nuance.
This is unfortunately the most common form of intellectual dishonesty in newspapers. I would be curious to know the actual stats of what % of visitors read the headline, the subheadline, first paragraph, and last paragraph. I would bet something like 100%, 60%, 30%, 5%. So the favorite way for journalists to lie is to bury deep in the article the facts that contradict or mitigate the headline, so the article technically has the facts somewhere, but the vast majority of readers will be misled nevertheless.
"We're not in principle against stopping climate change, we're just against every specific measure proposed to counter climate change."
Sorry, I'm really tired of hearing these arguments.
Sorry, I'm really tired of hearing these arguments.
I have an alternative $3.5 trillion climate bill. It's to spend $2.5 trillion dollars on purchasing carbon credits and spend $1 trillion as a paycheck for me for coming up with this brilliant bill. Don't agree? I guess you're just against saving the planet.
In all seriousness, I think that some of the proposals are even more handwavy about how they would decrease emissions than carbon credits. I also wouldn't be surprised if essentially $1 trillion will be spent pandering to the politicians' base rather than doing good for the nation. It's not too different from spending the money on yourself.
In all seriousness, I think that some of the proposals are even more handwavy about how they would decrease emissions than carbon credits. I also wouldn't be surprised if essentially $1 trillion will be spent pandering to the politicians' base rather than doing good for the nation. It's not too different from spending the money on yourself.
If you're tired of hearing these arguments, you may wish to consider not making them to yourself and then putting quotes around them as if someone else said them.
I am pretty sure that in US usual fashion, the bill include other kind of amendment that have no relation with climate change and could have adverse effect on those company business, but yeah let's simplify narrative and say that these company are pro climate change.
I am far from being a FAANG cheerleader but I feel quite skeptical that it is as simple as the guardian is depicting it, if only because it is a britain based news outlet.
I am far from being a FAANG cheerleader but I feel quite skeptical that it is as simple as the guardian is depicting it, if only because it is a britain based news outlet.
Before blaming them, we should ask why they are against it.
“provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy”
I would be also against a bill that includes this.
“provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy”
I would be also against a bill that includes this.
Are you against carbon-free nuclear energy, or against payments propping such energy up?
The article says why. The US Chamber of Commerce has fought tooth and nail against climate legislation because they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society.
They've only recently been forced to admit that climate change even exists, but it's still like pulling teeth because they insist that any solutions have to be technology driven from the private sector, with no mandates whatsoever from government.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Comme... and try to keep from retching.
They've only recently been forced to admit that climate change even exists, but it's still like pulling teeth because they insist that any solutions have to be technology driven from the private sector, with no mandates whatsoever from government.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Comme... and try to keep from retching.
> they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society
On a totally unrelated note, just think how much activity an Arctic shipping corridor could add to the globalized economy :) https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-r...
On a totally unrelated note, just think how much activity an Arctic shipping corridor could add to the globalized economy :) https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-r...
Could you explain your position? I feel like nuclear energy is one of the best options we have available for a reduction in carbon emissions, with very high safety despite public fears:
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_...
Or is your opposition more due to the proposed subsidy?
Or is your opposition more due to the proposed subsidy?
Nuclear energy is probably our best bet for big scale carbon-free energy. Renewables without (costly, often impractical) enormous storage can't do the job, and keeping gas plants for peak loads isn't helping. Nuclear has enormous upfront costs, making it a somewhat risky investment, so big subsidies are required to get it up and running. After that you get carbon-free electricity for decades.
So which part are you against?
So which part are you against?
The Build Back Better bill (or reconciliation bill) is the only real climate legislation that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s. It offers a meaningful path forward for the US to curb its carbon emissions.
Opposing it means you oppose doing anything about mitigating the climate crisis within the United States from a federal legislative perspective within a timeframe where we can reasonably imagine stopping temperatures from increasing past 1.5° or 2.0°C.
It is revenue neutral and paid for by increasing taxes on the richest Americans and corporations. That’s why Apple and Disney are opposed to it. Notably, their tax liabilities will still be lower than they were in 2017.
Opposing it means you oppose doing anything about mitigating the climate crisis within the United States from a federal legislative perspective within a timeframe where we can reasonably imagine stopping temperatures from increasing past 1.5° or 2.0°C.
It is revenue neutral and paid for by increasing taxes on the richest Americans and corporations. That’s why Apple and Disney are opposed to it. Notably, their tax liabilities will still be lower than they were in 2017.
So its not revenue neutral.
Revenue neutral doesn't mean you can't increase taxes. It just means the funding isn't based on borrowing.
"Revenue neutral" just means a bill will not increase government revenues.
edit : You can downvote me all you want, it isn't going to change the definition of the term.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
edit : You can downvote me all you want, it isn't going to change the definition of the term.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
I suppose you may be right that revenue-neutral is not the right word, or at least people are starting to use it in a new way focusing more on debt than tax.
It is pretty clear that what Biden tweets about is the impact on debt, not taxes: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-biden...
It is pretty clear that what Biden tweets about is the impact on debt, not taxes: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-biden...
or another way to put it: https://babylonbee.com/news/thief-assures-victim-the-robbery...
We don’t know if the bill is revenue neutral because we haven’t seen the final version yet.
> that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s
Its 2021... not a chance you can claim that. One thing that is certain is that the US wont pass the 3.5 trillion dollar bill - there is zero path forward for it at this point.
Its 2021... not a chance you can claim that. One thing that is certain is that the US wont pass the 3.5 trillion dollar bill - there is zero path forward for it at this point.
Redistricting plus midterm effects means that Democrats will lose their trifecta in January 2023. They’ll be unlikely to regain it, if they’re lucky, until the end of the decade. The party of climate denialism (the ones that start with R) isn’t going to get on board with climate legislation.
Also where do I state any certainty about the price tag?
Also where do I state any certainty about the price tag?
> Opposing it means you oppose ...
If life were so simple. Of course, the reality is this bill covers everything from child tax credits, paid leaves, to god knows what else.
If life were so simple. Of course, the reality is this bill covers everything from child tax credits, paid leaves, to god knows what else.
Oh no, god forbid we try to drag ourselves into the 21st century, and get somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades.
[deleted]
cscurmudgeon(3)
You say that, but I get the feeling we've been here before. Pretty much every time there is an ambitious and expensive spending bill after a couple of years it turns out that the 21st century is still ahead. Eg, Obamacare would probably have been described as dragging the US into the 21st century and getting somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades. And yet it turned out not to, the rhetoric is still that US healthcare is pretty bad.
There needs to be some scepticism about what these bills actually achieve rather than what people would like them to attempt to achieve. And when trillions are involved there is going to be massive corruption in the political process.
There needs to be some scepticism about what these bills actually achieve rather than what people would like them to attempt to achieve. And when trillions are involved there is going to be massive corruption in the political process.
>Eg, Obamacare would probably have been described as dragging the US into the 21st century and getting somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades.
Uhm, no. Obamacare is basically a Republican brainchild, mostly conceptualized by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. I wouldn't describe it as dragging the US into the 21st century... more like dragging it barely into the 20th century.
>And yet it turned out not to, the rhetoric is still that US healthcare is pretty bad.
US Healthcare is pretty good. But also extremely expensive at the same time, with lots of people unable to afford it, even when they have health insurance thanks to huge co-payments. You keep hearing the stories of severely injured people screaming they do NOT want to go to the hospital because they cannot afford it, and of other people who are brought to the ER, then amass huge debt in a short time that bankrupts them, and then they end up dying very prematurely anyway because the actual life-saving treatment or surgery is something they couldn't afford before, and certainly cannot afford after seeing the initial ER bill.
Waiting a few months at worst for a hip replacement surgery in Germany seems fine compared to waiting for hip replacement surgery forever and never actually getting it in the US because you cannot afford it even though you worked two jobs your entire life. All the while the US spends 17% of their GDP on health care, bout 5% points more than most other western nations.
That's the state of affairs after Obamacare. And yet, Obamacare still made things better than before for a lot of people.
Uhm, no. Obamacare is basically a Republican brainchild, mostly conceptualized by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. I wouldn't describe it as dragging the US into the 21st century... more like dragging it barely into the 20th century.
>And yet it turned out not to, the rhetoric is still that US healthcare is pretty bad.
US Healthcare is pretty good. But also extremely expensive at the same time, with lots of people unable to afford it, even when they have health insurance thanks to huge co-payments. You keep hearing the stories of severely injured people screaming they do NOT want to go to the hospital because they cannot afford it, and of other people who are brought to the ER, then amass huge debt in a short time that bankrupts them, and then they end up dying very prematurely anyway because the actual life-saving treatment or surgery is something they couldn't afford before, and certainly cannot afford after seeing the initial ER bill.
Waiting a few months at worst for a hip replacement surgery in Germany seems fine compared to waiting for hip replacement surgery forever and never actually getting it in the US because you cannot afford it even though you worked two jobs your entire life. All the while the US spends 17% of their GDP on health care, bout 5% points more than most other western nations.
That's the state of affairs after Obamacare. And yet, Obamacare still made things better than before for a lot of people.
Obamacare didn't make anything better. The simultaneous Medicaid expansion made things better.
I'd agree that the Medicaid expansion was far more effective than Obamacare in improving things, but Obamacare had some positive outcomes too.
> There needs to be some scepticism about what these bills actually achieve rather than what people would like them to attempt to achieve.
That's not how it works. If you want the bill to seem like a wise decision, you name it something like WISE or SMART. If you want to make it seem like it would work, put the word "effective" somewhere in there. If polling indicates widespread support for universal programs, make sure to stick the word "universal" in there.
Everything's marketing, we can just market ourselves to death. Most of US politics is the mastery of baby boomer tone anyway: that bland assertive 80s speech pattern that makes boomers think you're a wise steward and a moderate, nuanced hand. For that matter, part of it is to repeat the words "complex" and "nuanced" a lot, especially when referring to "challenges" and "responses."
That's not how it works. If you want the bill to seem like a wise decision, you name it something like WISE or SMART. If you want to make it seem like it would work, put the word "effective" somewhere in there. If polling indicates widespread support for universal programs, make sure to stick the word "universal" in there.
Everything's marketing, we can just market ourselves to death. Most of US politics is the mastery of baby boomer tone anyway: that bland assertive 80s speech pattern that makes boomers think you're a wise steward and a moderate, nuanced hand. For that matter, part of it is to repeat the words "complex" and "nuanced" a lot, especially when referring to "challenges" and "responses."
Fallacy. A step in the right direction is still better than taking no step at all.
This is simply not true.
If a car is barreling towards you, taking a small step towards safety is wasting the time you could have spent jumping out of the way.
Not only do you end up just as dead as you would be if you had done nothing at all, but you've wasted the effort of making a decision and moving; effort you could have spent on more pleasant thoughts if you had just decided to die from the outset.
Even worse, a moderate decision is harder to make than a firm one. Instead of just doing what could be effective, you have to figure out what could be effective, and cut it in half. By the time you've finished your calculations, you won't even have time to make the useless step.
If a car is barreling towards you, taking a small step towards safety is wasting the time you could have spent jumping out of the way.
Not only do you end up just as dead as you would be if you had done nothing at all, but you've wasted the effort of making a decision and moving; effort you could have spent on more pleasant thoughts if you had just decided to die from the outset.
Even worse, a moderate decision is harder to make than a firm one. Instead of just doing what could be effective, you have to figure out what could be effective, and cut it in half. By the time you've finished your calculations, you won't even have time to make the useless step.
A democracy does not work the same as a human brain trying to prevent an accident. It works with compromises and majorities. Therefore my point still stands.
Politicians always claim that what they want to do is a step right direction, are they correct?
I don’t know US politics, US law, economics, so I can’t possibly tell if this bill is actually good or bad for anything.
I don’t know US politics, US law, economics, so I can’t possibly tell if this bill is actually good or bad for anything.
So it seems you agree this is not about climate change.
I'm sure many of these things are worthwhile, but a climate change is a big enough problem by itself. If you try to do everything at once, you're likely fail them all.
> get somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades.
Yes, just come closer to the clusterfuck the rest of us have. In every country most people say “healthcare in this country is a mess”, and yet, my best experiences with healthcare have been in the US.
Yes, just come closer to the clusterfuck the rest of us have. In every country most people say “healthcare in this country is a mess”, and yet, my best experiences with healthcare have been in the US.
[deleted]
This bill isn’t a focused climate or infrastructure bill. That’s the marketing dressing for a widely scoped bill where only 23% of spending is for infrastructure. In actuality it includes many radically left-leaning policies, which moderates on neither side of the aisle can support. A prominent example is that it included changes to immigration that would grant citizenship for 8 million illegal immigrants, which luckily the Senate parliamentarian shot down. That’s not a climate bill - that’s a power grab that intends to reshape the electorate and dilute the voting interests of legal citizens, particularly Republicans, since this cohort would overwhelmingly vote Democrat. People have many complex reasons to support or oppose any bill, just as they do with any candidate. It isn’t as black and white as you’re painting. If supporters of the bill truly felt climate was a critical issue, they would create a much tighter bill that has as few reasons to garner opposition as possible.
I have never heard this particular angle on this bill, and would hope that it's wrong. Can someone confirm/deny with some references?
To be fair, the only example of the “many radically left-leaning policies” that they provided was one that had already been removed.
I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here.
My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.
I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here.
My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-ca...
It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.
It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.
Ah. So it does have more than climate change issues in it.
As a Canuck, I see this as a huge US weakness. These megabills, riders and such.
The parent's point is valid. If people cared, really, really cared, it would be a single purpose bill.
It would be more effective too, in that, people could legitimately say... this is only about climate change. Nothing else. What part of this do you object to?
Right now, it clearly is not, and lo and behold, people can easily reject it, and even have very valid reasons for doing so.
As a Canuck, I see this as a huge US weakness. These megabills, riders and such.
The parent's point is valid. If people cared, really, really cared, it would be a single purpose bill.
It would be more effective too, in that, people could legitimately say... this is only about climate change. Nothing else. What part of this do you object to?
Right now, it clearly is not, and lo and behold, people can easily reject it, and even have very valid reasons for doing so.
I suspect if the US political system weren't so dysfunctional, there wouldn't be any need to roll it into a single mega bill. I don't think it's about caring or not caring. Indeed to suggest that it's evidence that people don't care about it, those are your own projections. I don't think they make sense at all.
> What part of this do you object to?
Given the lack of success of, well, any major climate change action in the US, this quality would probably not provide much.
Given the lack of success of, well, any major climate change action in the US, this quality would probably not provide much.
Mega bills happen in Canada too. Lots of random stuff is snuck into budget bills, often for similar reasons -- especially in minority parliaments. It allows a kind of brinksmanship; approve the budget or we have an election you'll lose seats in. Harper was particularly fond of them, since most of his term was in a very confrontational minority government.
If you take it a step further, ask why do we need to use reconciliation and a single megabill, the problem becomes the Senate.
The Senate already gives heavy weight to less populated conservative states. add the filibuster rule - which a simple majority can get rid of - and it just amplifies the power of white, conservative men who vote to get re-elected or build for a presidential run. They're voting for what appeals to something like less than 40% of the population.
We're talking about giving DREAMers a path to citizenship which is supported by over 75% of voters...
I think people really care. It isn't their top issue but it has very broad support.
it does look like there is some movement on a standalone bill with at least a couple Republicans supporting it. But I wouldn't hold my breath though. [1]
As the original comment shows, one side views it as a 'power grab' to 'dilute' voting power... That's a pretty narrow view and to me reads a small shade of likely racial bias.
And back to state elections of Senators, that rhetoric is what wins votes for many of these Rs and that's what drives their decision making. Money too. But that's used to win votes.
One hears the same argument against universal vote-by-mail and other anti-suppression measures. A 'vote grab'.. yeah that's the point we should encourage more people to vote!
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-docu...
The Senate already gives heavy weight to less populated conservative states. add the filibuster rule - which a simple majority can get rid of - and it just amplifies the power of white, conservative men who vote to get re-elected or build for a presidential run. They're voting for what appeals to something like less than 40% of the population.
We're talking about giving DREAMers a path to citizenship which is supported by over 75% of voters...
I think people really care. It isn't their top issue but it has very broad support.
it does look like there is some movement on a standalone bill with at least a couple Republicans supporting it. But I wouldn't hold my breath though. [1]
As the original comment shows, one side views it as a 'power grab' to 'dilute' voting power... That's a pretty narrow view and to me reads a small shade of likely racial bias.
And back to state elections of Senators, that rhetoric is what wins votes for many of these Rs and that's what drives their decision making. Money too. But that's used to win votes.
One hears the same argument against universal vote-by-mail and other anti-suppression measures. A 'vote grab'.. yeah that's the point we should encourage more people to vote!
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-docu...
I feel like the distinction you’re making is not particularly interesting. It grants a pathway to citizenship to likely-Democrat voters who currently don’t have a pathway to citizenship. So sure there is a process, but it doesn’t change the impact of such a policy.
I wish more people found being truthful and acurate interesting.
Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.
Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.
This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in question.
From the article that's linked to in the article:
>The social policy bill could be transformative for millions of American families. Though the details are fluid and the overall package almost certain to shrink, the proposed legislation would extend the child tax credit, establish universal pre-K education, create a federally paid family and medical leave system, in addition to an array of programs to combat the climate crisis and transition the country toward renewable energy. The plan would be paid for by trillions of dollars in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?
From the article that's linked to in the article:
>The social policy bill could be transformative for millions of American families. Though the details are fluid and the overall package almost certain to shrink, the proposed legislation would extend the child tax credit, establish universal pre-K education, create a federally paid family and medical leave system, in addition to an array of programs to combat the climate crisis and transition the country toward renewable energy. The plan would be paid for by trillions of dollars in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?
>Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?
They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.
They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.
And the reason why they are bulked into a single bill is to utilise the budget reconciliation procedure which bypasses the filibuster.
I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
> to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it
That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.
That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.
I agree, it used to, and it should. There must be some sort of penalty to use it only when it really matters, and a physical penalty is one way to do it.
> I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not).
The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.
In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not).
The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.
Since the Senate is not even theoretically a proportional house (like the House of Reps is supposed to be but can't be due to the cap on members), demanding a 60% member threshold to pass every single bill means the number of voters it takes to pass a bill gets into ridiculous 70-80% territory.
It does not make any sense in any universe to take a legislative body that is already counter-majoritarian and then add on even more counter-majoritarian rules and procedures on top.
The thing about 'real' filibusters vs. the pretend one in the US Senate isn't just that they cost something, it's that they are generally doomed to fail if that's all you have.
Even endless talking has historically been rarely enough on its own to prevent a bill from passing in most legislatures. It can be an opportunity to bring attention to the issue and make legislators have to listen to their voters, or to convince other legislators to reconsider. But something else has to happen or eventually the bill will have to be tabled anyways.
But I think people fail to recognize this, because the concept of filibuster in the US has been so thoroughly distorted by this broken rule. Even if the filibuster required actually doing an endless talk, it would still not be sufficiently democratic if they could simply run out a clock and the bill was defeated -- in fact, that would perhaps be even worse since it would allow any given member to exercise an unreasonable amount of control over the body as a whole that currently at least requires some degree of unity among the minority party.
It does not make any sense in any universe to take a legislative body that is already counter-majoritarian and then add on even more counter-majoritarian rules and procedures on top.
The thing about 'real' filibusters vs. the pretend one in the US Senate isn't just that they cost something, it's that they are generally doomed to fail if that's all you have.
Even endless talking has historically been rarely enough on its own to prevent a bill from passing in most legislatures. It can be an opportunity to bring attention to the issue and make legislators have to listen to their voters, or to convince other legislators to reconsider. But something else has to happen or eventually the bill will have to be tabled anyways.
But I think people fail to recognize this, because the concept of filibuster in the US has been so thoroughly distorted by this broken rule. Even if the filibuster required actually doing an endless talk, it would still not be sufficiently democratic if they could simply run out a clock and the bill was defeated -- in fact, that would perhaps be even worse since it would allow any given member to exercise an unreasonable amount of control over the body as a whole that currently at least requires some degree of unity among the minority party.
> intends to reshape the electorate and dilute the voting interests of legal citizens
Even if this characterization of the bill were accurate, those people would then be legal citizens. Are they then diluting their own voting interests? At any rate people being born also dilutes voting interests, should we end that too, or are only people born to it inherently worthy of citizenship?
Anyways, what, precisely, makes these people's interests less valid than those citizens? Most of them are paying taxes and working and raising families. They're literally asking to be subject to the same rights and responsibilities as citizens are. Wow how horrible.
Even if this characterization of the bill were accurate, those people would then be legal citizens. Are they then diluting their own voting interests? At any rate people being born also dilutes voting interests, should we end that too, or are only people born to it inherently worthy of citizenship?
Anyways, what, precisely, makes these people's interests less valid than those citizens? Most of them are paying taxes and working and raising families. They're literally asking to be subject to the same rights and responsibilities as citizens are. Wow how horrible.
Many of them are DREAMers too
Why is it relevant that some were DACA eligible? They’re still illegal immigrants, and it doesn’t impact the reality that granting them deferred action changes the future electoral power for each party significantly due to birthright citizenship. DACA wasn’t even a proper piece of legislation, but an executive order, which makes it even more one-sided.
Respectfully, I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Yes this bill would exploit our political process to legally admit many future citizens. I don’t think that makes it ethical, just as I don’t think it was ethical for McConnell to exploit a technicality around a SCOTUS nomination, or for either party to exploit executive orders as a means to legislate. I view the interests of illegal immigrants as less valid because they’ve violated our laws in arriving here in the first place. Crimes normally result in citizenship not being granted to otherwise legal migrants, and the same should hold here. The reason this amnesty is under consideration at all is because it is a shortcut to political power, granting one political side more future votes relative to the other.
"exploit our political process" is a funny way to say "change the law around immigration".
What's the exploit here? We aren't even talking about an executive order here are we? We're talking about an element of a bill being passed through the legislatures of the land. Exactly the mechanism that laws are supposed to go through to change.
Anyways the people who are most viciously opposed to immigration are also the very same people who exploit illegal immigrant labor and have a vested interest in keeping an eternal underclass they can abuse, so you'll forgive me if I have very little sympathy for the 'side' that claims adding more citizens and giving more people intimately affected by the law the right to vote is an 'end run around democracy'.
Also, many of these people had no choice in their alleged "law breaking". Holding people accountable and punishing them for their parents bringing them into the country when they were children is incredibly cruel. Insisting that they should never be able to obtain citizenship in the country they grew up in on top of that because they broke a law that holds almost no moral value would be just pure evil.
Also, the 'exploit' that's actually being abused right now is the comically absurd procedural filibuster, which never should have been a thing in the first place. It, frankly, wasn't wrong to reduce the threshold for supreme court nominations to 50 votes in the senate -- it's wrong to tie up every single vote in a filibuster no one has to actually put anything on the line for.
What's the exploit here? We aren't even talking about an executive order here are we? We're talking about an element of a bill being passed through the legislatures of the land. Exactly the mechanism that laws are supposed to go through to change.
Anyways the people who are most viciously opposed to immigration are also the very same people who exploit illegal immigrant labor and have a vested interest in keeping an eternal underclass they can abuse, so you'll forgive me if I have very little sympathy for the 'side' that claims adding more citizens and giving more people intimately affected by the law the right to vote is an 'end run around democracy'.
Also, many of these people had no choice in their alleged "law breaking". Holding people accountable and punishing them for their parents bringing them into the country when they were children is incredibly cruel. Insisting that they should never be able to obtain citizenship in the country they grew up in on top of that because they broke a law that holds almost no moral value would be just pure evil.
Also, the 'exploit' that's actually being abused right now is the comically absurd procedural filibuster, which never should have been a thing in the first place. It, frankly, wasn't wrong to reduce the threshold for supreme court nominations to 50 votes in the senate -- it's wrong to tie up every single vote in a filibuster no one has to actually put anything on the line for.
It is a massive spending program that gives government too much power, probably will harm our infrastructure and any impact on climate is purely speculative.
I am pretty sure a lot of digging holes and filling them back up kind of work just for the sake compliance. I hope the bill does not pass or even if it passes future admins roll it back.
I am pretty sure a lot of digging holes and filling them back up kind of work just for the sake compliance. I hope the bill does not pass or even if it passes future admins roll it back.
If this is true then maybe the fault lies partially with the bad-faith legislators who have stuffed the bill with a Christmas wish-list of items that suit their agenda but have nothing to do with climate change, thus making it harder for the bill to pass?
While this sounds truthy, would be even better if you have refs on what's been stuffed in.
Why not just have a clean climate bill? This is just political nonsense.
I dont if it s revenue neutral if it means being absolutely not neutral on the people and groups contributing most to society's finances.
If that s the case then I agree they have a right to complain, if just on the fact nobody's made responsible but them for something that is everybody's fault.
If that s the case then I agree they have a right to complain, if just on the fact nobody's made responsible but them for something that is everybody's fault.
[deleted]
Nope. That’s just playing politics.
“Yeah the bill has a lot of terrible parts to it, but if you don’t support it you just don’t care about the earth”.
Nonsense.
“Yeah the bill has a lot of terrible parts to it, but if you don’t support it you just don’t care about the earth”.
Nonsense.
No. One can oppose the bill for lots of reasons, including a lack of faith that any of the taxes, regulations and spending will have the effect you and the politicians who wrote it think it will. Or one might oppose it because one thinks it doesn't go far enough. Either way mind reading isn't helpful.
It sounds like the bill is proposing significant tax increases and the companies are fighting the tax increases. If I put a bill forward to lower taxes and execute baby seals, corporations would vote for it.
Of course, businesses will support executing baby seals. Baby seals are a source of premium leather that has nice waterproofing qualities.
If software was developed the way politicians pass laws, Linux would get one master commit every few years with thousands of unrelated things in it, from typo fixes to sketchy telemetry, with a 1500 pages long description, and the commit would be branded as "build security better". The review would be a months long show where maintainers of all factions with their own agendas would try to negotiate behind the closed doors. Linus would be advocating for splitting the "pile of garbage" into individual commits, but the agitated mob (who thinks Linux is a game on Xbox) would be trying to bully him on Twitter for having a different opinion.
In fairness this is a feature of the American political system, the business of making laws does not have to be done this way. It’s just a sign of how dysfunctional the system is.
Plenty of laws get passed with specific language and quick votes.
The difference here is that the Democrats are trying to pass a massive spending bill and have a very slim majority in the house and Senate, so they need “all hands on deck”, so they need to offer some sugar to everyone to get it passed.
The difference here is that the Democrats are trying to pass a massive spending bill and have a very slim majority in the house and Senate, so they need “all hands on deck”, so they need to offer some sugar to everyone to get it passed.
You're probably underestimating the amount of boring laws passed in a given time period.
The difference between law and software is that with law you have more disadvantages from churn. Companies depend on stable legal situations, and it's important for people in the law system to keep up with changes.
Thank you for putting it in terms us programmers understand, now we see the problem clearly.
Now to show them politicians how we have already solved this problem.
Yes, but is a benevolent dictator the solution?
Here's what I propose, to lessen the effect of populism: The elections are held in a tournament format. People are divided into randomised brackets. People then in that bracket decide who amongst them is most fit to be a leader.
This is then repeated recursively until enough politicians are selected.
After a few iterations you only have "leader" personalities left, at which point things might get as ugly as politics itself.
Who needs climate when you have Apple+ and Disney+
There are lots of reasons to oppose this bill; why assume climate change is the only reason? And if it's fair to assume the opposition is to the portion of these taxes and regulations meant to address climate change, why assume the opposition is to efforts to remediate climate change writ large when the opposition might just be to these specific measures?
Also, why is explicitly political stuff, let alone badly written political stuff, of particular interest to the people who read hacker news? Is it a pun on hack journalism? If so, well. I get it. Kinda.
Also, why is explicitly political stuff, let alone badly written political stuff, of particular interest to the people who read hacker news? Is it a pun on hack journalism? If so, well. I get it. Kinda.
The current talking points I assume. The zero cost joke did not work so this the new spiel? It is amazing that these primitive propaganda tricks work on so many otherwise smart people here.
Why do they put many unrelated things in the same bill? Smaller, independent pull requests seems like a better way.
Actual answer: Because the code management system is built with certain merge restrictions:
- A PR can be merged with 50 or more code reviews and approvals if it has 0 rejections
- If there are any rejections, the requirement is a little more intense, at 60 or more code reviews and approvals
- Once per year, one PR can be merged per year with 50 code-review approvals and any number of rejections.
- The company has 100 developers and at least 41 will reject every single PR summited for review
- It takes agreement of 50 developers to change the merge rules, and there are 48 or fewer who want to do so
This is why there are so many unrelated changes in one PR. It's probably the only one they will be able to merge this year.
- A PR can be merged with 50 or more code reviews and approvals if it has 0 rejections
- If there are any rejections, the requirement is a little more intense, at 60 or more code reviews and approvals
- Once per year, one PR can be merged per year with 50 code-review approvals and any number of rejections.
- The company has 100 developers and at least 41 will reject every single PR summited for review
- It takes agreement of 50 developers to change the merge rules, and there are 48 or fewer who want to do so
This is why there are so many unrelated changes in one PR. It's probably the only one they will be able to merge this year.
Other than the once per year point, these all seem like reasons to make smaller PR's.
What makes this badly written?
The bill doesn’t yet exist. It’s currently being negotiated because of the slim majority Democrats have in the US it needs centrists and liberal factions of the party to agree, which you’d think would be easy… but in a strange political way they’re trying to throwing everything into one bill (childcare/ healthcare/ environment ).
Unsupported premises. Assumptions. Good writing should help us see things we didn't before. This does not.
Notably absent are Google and Facebook.
This goes for all big corporations, all of them lie through their teeth and only care about the appearance of caring, because that's a lot more profitable than actually caring.
Reduce your consumption and lifestyle. Buy as little as possible, preferably second-hand. Maintain and repair what you already own. Become politically active or at least vote for people who are not in the pockets of big business.
Reduce your consumption and lifestyle. Buy as little as possible, preferably second-hand. Maintain and repair what you already own. Become politically active or at least vote for people who are not in the pockets of big business.
The best solution to climate change is a price on Carbon.
Anything else is just pork.
If we don't want to impose a carbon price on ourselves, we can do it to others via import tariffs.
Anything else is just pork.
If we don't want to impose a carbon price on ourselves, we can do it to others via import tariffs.
I disagree: It might be part of the solution, but simply taxing carbon means that rich folks or companies can pollute. We need green methods put into law to force folks to cut their emissions and pollutants - and punish those who run afoul of the laws, including steep fines, possible business shutdowns, and personal liability/criminal charges for CEOS and other folks running the company, especially if they cover up their polluting.
I'd much rather just deny good that do not meet standards. Again, tariffs just make it so moneyed folks can just pay to avoid stuff.
I'd much rather just deny good that do not meet standards. Again, tariffs just make it so moneyed folks can just pay to avoid stuff.
Carbon taxes basically do that though. They "fine" you if you use more carbon than your competitors, disadvantaging you in the market.
Tax evasion is already a crime, and would be difficult for most people since it would be embedded into the things they buy in a million little ways. But each supplier has their own direct incentive to change that to stay conpetitive.
There's room for other policies too, the whole "if you dont do carbon taxes youre not serious about climate change" thing seems like a bait and switch by politicians who have already poisoned the well on taxes generally. (And people generally seem ignorant that carbon pricing is an integral part of action on climate change around the world).
Tax evasion is already a crime, and would be difficult for most people since it would be embedded into the things they buy in a million little ways. But each supplier has their own direct incentive to change that to stay conpetitive.
There's room for other policies too, the whole "if you dont do carbon taxes youre not serious about climate change" thing seems like a bait and switch by politicians who have already poisoned the well on taxes generally. (And people generally seem ignorant that carbon pricing is an integral part of action on climate change around the world).
How do you justify pricing carbon when governments subsidies for fossil fuels are billions of dollars annually?
Most changes work better if there's a ramp or taper. Phasing out subsidies is a good idea and possibly worth doing in parallel but carbon fees will directly affect those industries in a very direct way so it kind of cancels out.
I'm possibly reading too much into your question but carbon dividends that let everyone spend the money raised on what they need to do to adjust are a sensible part of any plan. Taxes are a very useful and soohisticated government tool, and in America certain groups have relentlessly attacked both taxes and government intervention as things that are harmful. (The exact same people arguing that tobacco, global warming, lead paint, corporate funding of politicians etc. are not bad for you)
I'm possibly reading too much into your question but carbon dividends that let everyone spend the money raised on what they need to do to adjust are a sensible part of any plan. Taxes are a very useful and soohisticated government tool, and in America certain groups have relentlessly attacked both taxes and government intervention as things that are harmful. (The exact same people arguing that tobacco, global warming, lead paint, corporate funding of politicians etc. are not bad for you)
A company can simply decide to pay the carbon tax, though.
Actual penalties mean that you are actually risking your company if you don't comply. Fines are different if the folks in charge have to pay some as well, for example, and/or if they are a significant portion of profit (percentage of profit is a harder hit than a flat carbon tax that you can plan for if you would like). After fines? Jail times for those in charge and closing/auctioning off your business.
Carbon taxed don't do these things, and I'm not a believer in the market taking care of this since carbon taxed don't actually make anyone get more efficient than their competitors, who are only likely to get efficient if it is profitable. Carbon taxes themselves aren't likely to do this.
Actual penalties mean that you are actually risking your company if you don't comply. Fines are different if the folks in charge have to pay some as well, for example, and/or if they are a significant portion of profit (percentage of profit is a harder hit than a flat carbon tax that you can plan for if you would like). After fines? Jail times for those in charge and closing/auctioning off your business.
Carbon taxed don't do these things, and I'm not a believer in the market taking care of this since carbon taxed don't actually make anyone get more efficient than their competitors, who are only likely to get efficient if it is profitable. Carbon taxes themselves aren't likely to do this.
Lots of industries are low margin (the natural state of competitive markets) and cannot simply pay the carbon tax and act like nothing happened. They can pass the price along, and that will hurt these industries according to how elastic their customers’ demand is. So at least we’d be emitting carbon for the things markets deem more useful.
It may not be a total solution, but it’s a first step. Too many climate activists have this brinksman “no but” approach to changing the course of the political ship of climate change (see nuclear power discussion above), when we really need “yes and” even if the first steps aren’t perfect or big enough. Yelling at people to make drastic changes has never convinced even honest skeptics.
It may not be a total solution, but it’s a first step. Too many climate activists have this brinksman “no but” approach to changing the course of the political ship of climate change (see nuclear power discussion above), when we really need “yes and” even if the first steps aren’t perfect or big enough. Yelling at people to make drastic changes has never convinced even honest skeptics.
The differences are on the margins... many activities become unprofitable or less profitable if you have to pay carbon tax. Many fuel sources (e.g. coal) become uneconomical, so people switch. I don't see any issue with rich people polluting.
Carbon tax is like LVT - we have commons (ability of the ecosystem to "absorb" emissions), we have to split it up somehow, what better way than to price them in a manner where only the amount that can be sustainably used, is used? People who can make the best use of the capacity, or are willing to burn money on it, will buy it up.
Carbon tax is like LVT - we have commons (ability of the ecosystem to "absorb" emissions), we have to split it up somehow, what better way than to price them in a manner where only the amount that can be sustainably used, is used? People who can make the best use of the capacity, or are willing to burn money on it, will buy it up.
If the cost of a carbon credit is higher than the cost of sequestration, and sequestering operations generate credits, then in essence by paying for carbon credits you are paying to clean up your emissions.
Also, I fail to see how carbon tax collected in the U.S. for wasteful lifestyle is going to be distributed to, say, Ethiopia, with a same-order-of-maginitude population (115M vs 329M) and ~1/150 emissions per capita (according to [1]).
Without scaling back the unsustainable rich American lifestyle, this tax will have limited domestic impact, while punishing developing countries trying to catch up via more polluting industries. Which is perfect for maintaining the world order where the majority of human beings work and live in subpar conditions to support the unsustainable lifestyles of a small minority, I suppose.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Without scaling back the unsustainable rich American lifestyle, this tax will have limited domestic impact, while punishing developing countries trying to catch up via more polluting industries. Which is perfect for maintaining the world order where the majority of human beings work and live in subpar conditions to support the unsustainable lifestyles of a small minority, I suppose.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Westerners are actually much more efficient in terms of scientific, economic, cultural output per unit of CO2, compared to developing nations.
Ethiopia can benefit from the renewable energy technology developed in the West, and skip fossil fuels entirely.
Ethiopia can benefit from the renewable energy technology developed in the West, and skip fossil fuels entirely.
And preferably tax carbon as close to the source as possible (crude oil). Because leaving oil in the geound is so much easier than putting it back in.
I don't get why everyone talks about carbon instead of fossil fuels. The carbon that's already in the atmosphere cycles through it but doesn't change it. The carbon that gets dug up from the ground gets added to the atmosphere. It seems to me that what we really need to do is stop mining fossil fuels, and e.g. incentivize biofuels. If we tax carbon we also make biofuels more expensive, while in the grand scheme of things they seem to be basically climate neutral?
Its just a shorthand. Most actual policies include gasses other than carbon dioxide (which is different from carbon anyway) and account for things that absorb or emit carbon in other ways (e.g change in land use).
The low hanging fruit is to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them though and as such theyll be impacted most by "carbon" fees.
The low hanging fruit is to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them though and as such theyll be impacted most by "carbon" fees.
I think carbon is the wrong thing. We need to go after pollution. People understand pollution, it’s plastic in the lake, or smog in the sky, people don’t understand “carbon” but garbage on the ground is something we can do something about.
Climate change is the wrong term. We need to fight a war on pollution.
Climate change is the wrong term. We need to fight a war on pollution.
Pollution and global warming are two separate things we both need to prevent. We do not need to choose, we can and should address both. In Western countries pollution is generally better contained/addressed/regulated than in poorer countries, however Western countries contribute hugely more greenhouse gasses (certainly per capita, and especially US and AUS) than poorer countries. So no, carbon is not the wrong thing. It is the primary, singularly most important things we should address. And indeed, as long as we don't put a properly high prico on it one way or the other we are just fooling around and making the earth that much less inhabitable for our children
I really wish people would stop thinking that there's this one thing that will fix climate.
There isn't. It'll take lots of things. Carbon pricing is a good one if done right, but it's not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets.
There isn't. It'll take lots of things. Carbon pricing is a good one if done right, but it's not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets.
Why is it not a silver bullet?
The primary (only even) cause of the climate crisis is the fact that we have burnt and continue to burn a ton of carbon and emit it as CO2 in the atmosphere. And as most of the world functions with some form of capitalism, it makes a lot of sense to put a price on something to make it less desirable. In fact it makes so much sense that until we have put a significant price on fossil carbon use we cannot tell our children that we really tried to do something to prevent this crisis.
Like a carbon coin ? That you get once you have proven you took out some CO2 from the atmosphere.
Like in the ministry of future novel: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-cryp... ?
Like in the ministry of future novel: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-cryp... ?
Shouldn't it include methane? Methane is far more potent green house gas than Co2.
Fact: bears eat beets. Bears, beets, "Battlestar Galactica."
Where is the group of concerned Apple Employees signing a petition telling the company to stop doing _this_? C'mon Cher Scarlett!
I don't think the climate problem can be solved without some form of authoritarianism.
For most people, climate change does not affect their everyday lives. It primarily affects future generations, and non-humans. Caring about future generations is a form of long term thinking that most humans don't care for or are not capable of. Most people's long term thinking stops at their five year plan, or their kids' future. Very few people think about hundreds of years into the future, let alone thousands. Will this planet be habitable two thousand years from now? Very, very few people think that far ahead. Even less people care about the fate of non-humans.
Then when you throw in the fact that a lot of people have an incentive today to fight back against measures to combat climate change, because it would reduce their profits or threaten their job, the outlook is even more hopeless.
We are never going to get a majority of people on board with fighting climate change, at least not until it's affecting a majority of people's everyday lives. And by then, it will be far too late.
I think the only way is for the minority, who do think long term, to seize power and impose their will on the majority. And, I have to add, because most people think authoritarianism in any form is bad, that in this situation, the authoritarianism would be good, just, appropriate and the best course of action.
For most people, climate change does not affect their everyday lives. It primarily affects future generations, and non-humans. Caring about future generations is a form of long term thinking that most humans don't care for or are not capable of. Most people's long term thinking stops at their five year plan, or their kids' future. Very few people think about hundreds of years into the future, let alone thousands. Will this planet be habitable two thousand years from now? Very, very few people think that far ahead. Even less people care about the fate of non-humans.
Then when you throw in the fact that a lot of people have an incentive today to fight back against measures to combat climate change, because it would reduce their profits or threaten their job, the outlook is even more hopeless.
We are never going to get a majority of people on board with fighting climate change, at least not until it's affecting a majority of people's everyday lives. And by then, it will be far too late.
I think the only way is for the minority, who do think long term, to seize power and impose their will on the majority. And, I have to add, because most people think authoritarianism in any form is bad, that in this situation, the authoritarianism would be good, just, appropriate and the best course of action.
This assumes that humans understand the far future so well today that they can make decisions that will be effective and constructive in that context. Optionality has enormous value precisely because a lot can happen between now and then that no one can anticipate such that any decision made today will be ineffective or be actively damaging to good outcomes.
Imagine giving someone in 1920 authoritarian power to solve the problems of today, with virtually no information about the today.
Imagine giving someone in 1920 authoritarian power to solve the problems of today, with virtually no information about the today.
Yikes. So scary that this is the top comment. Climate change can definitely be addressed at the corporate level with carbon taxes and even caps. No need to throw away our free and open society.
The fact that your go-to is to attack human rights is terrifying.
The fact that your go-to is to attack human rights is terrifying.
It’s such a shame there are so many things going on in one giant bill. Who knows which part of it they oppose. Wouldn’t it be nice to work on and debate one issue at a time.
It's a complete farce to caricaturize the $3.5T reconciliation bill as a climate bill.
While there are some provisions that are intended to have an impact on the climate, like EV tax credits, these are poorly constructed and reward things like hybrid cars made in mexico and assembled by unions over electric cars made in the US.
It also fundamentally changes business incentives in many ways by increasing capital gains tax, increasing income tax, increasing business tax and requiring companies to take on a whole bunch of enforcement on behalf of the federal government for other social policies they would like to enact.
A bill that's intended to improve the climate would look like nuclear power plant regulation reform or removal of tax credits for oil production or a carbon tax. Not some poorly constructed bill that lines the pockets of their favorite special interest groups who recently got a fresh coat of green paint.
The fact that all of these companies oppose the bill should speak to how poorly constructed it is.
While there are some provisions that are intended to have an impact on the climate, like EV tax credits, these are poorly constructed and reward things like hybrid cars made in mexico and assembled by unions over electric cars made in the US.
It also fundamentally changes business incentives in many ways by increasing capital gains tax, increasing income tax, increasing business tax and requiring companies to take on a whole bunch of enforcement on behalf of the federal government for other social policies they would like to enact.
A bill that's intended to improve the climate would look like nuclear power plant regulation reform or removal of tax credits for oil production or a carbon tax. Not some poorly constructed bill that lines the pockets of their favorite special interest groups who recently got a fresh coat of green paint.
The fact that all of these companies oppose the bill should speak to how poorly constructed it is.
Wow, you're telling me their claims of being climate friendly are just performative advertising? Who'da thunk!
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the past year of climate catastrophes has shown us anything, it’s high time we act.
Yes, the proposed changes might be inconvenient but it’s time we suck it up and do the needful. Small steps are not good enough. We need drastic measures.