re: [thread], pol 

@Wolf480pl @dazinism @cjd @freakazoid You can do it to an extent by measuring inputs, although it's quite possible that inputs aren't accurate!

(For instance, if a process generates methane, its carbon footprint is vastly higher than its inputs would indicate. The inputs could even be carbon neutral, and the emissions are positive...)

re: [thread], pol 

@bhtooefr @Wolf480pl @cjd @dazinism Right. You tax the carbon at the point it enters the market, whether by being imported or pumped from the ground. The underlying assumption is that all carbon eventually becomes CO2.

Some can become methane, which lasts long enough and has a potent enough effect to be worth taxing or regulating as a pollutant in its own right. But there are far fewer methane sources than CO2.

...

re: [thread], pol 

@dazinism @cjd @Wolf480pl @bhtooefr One could have a tax credit for sequestration, but deciding what should count as sequestration will probably be challenging.

re: [thread], pol 

@freakazoid @bhtooefr @Wolf480pl @dazinism
One problem with climate change is there's really no incentive to deal with it. If a democratic state starts to tax carbon, as soon as it begins to actually harm the economy people will vote that government out of power. Clean air is different because people in the cities directly feel the pain, climate change is always Someone Else's Problem.

re: [thread], pol 

@cjd @freakazoid @bhtooefr @[email protected] @dazinism
Today in absolute condemnations of capitalism: " One problem with climate change is there's really no incentive to deal with it." This may be a hint.

re: [thread], pol 

@zeh
I don't care what kind of economic system you have, when people start to have difficulty putting food on the table, they're going to vote you out, and quality of life is unfortunately highly correlated with energy consumption.
@freakazoid @bhtooefr @Wolf480pl @dazinism

re: [thread], pol 

@cjd
That makes no sense. You're mistaking your experience for what is possible, when the first is a tiny subset of the second. Voting inside "economic systems" that constrict your options to what is profitable is a travesty of freedom and there could be as many ways to live well as there are people, correlated to energy spending or not.

@freakazoid @bhtooefr @[email protected] @dazinism

re: [thread], pol 

@zeh @dazinism @Wolf480pl @bhtooefr @cjd Well, sure, unspecified hypothetical modes of organization will always win out over real world implementations.

re: [thread], pol 

@freakazoid
Not what I did. I just pointed out that taking this shit as inevitable is a mistake. But if you want to go that way, you may take hunter-gatherer tribes as a counter-example of both of those claims (which are also referred to as a system of primitive communism, actually).
@cjd @bhtooefr @[email protected] @dazinism

re: [thread], pol 

@zeh @dazinism @Wolf480pl @bhtooefr @cjd I don't take it as inevitable. But unless we have strong confidence both that a particular solution is better than that a particular set of actions is likely to get us there and not to an even worse state that's even harder to get out of, we're limited to incremental changes that are either easily reversible or that we at least have reasonable confidence won't make us worse off without a decent way out.

re: [thread], pol 

@cjd @bhtooefr @Wolf480pl @dazinism @zeh And there's plenty of obvious low-hanging fruit *today* that for some reason people ignore because it isn't perfect, or because it benefits people they don't like, or because they don't want to be called "moderates", or whatever.

Follow

re: [thread], pol 

@freakazoid
Low hanging fruit? to address climate apocalipse, which was the case in point? Such as? Short of reorganizing the system of production and eliminating profit as the number one priority, what would you suggest
@dazinism @[email protected] @bhtooefr @cjd

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!