211–220 of 253 posts
The correct solution to ecocide is a criminal charge and seizure of assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I figure if someone buys a gasoline powered car, they've just committed us to 50-100 tons of CO2 emissions. Seems like that is what you want to stop not playing games with fuel taxes.
That seems incredibly low. 1kg of Beef produces ~1ton CO2 equivalent emissions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s largely driven by people that don’t want to work within the market, they want to break the market, by starving supply / making it illegal. This tends to just lead to higher prices, black markets, riots, and right wing populist governments, but what do I know.
The end result of any successful action to curb fossil fuel consumption will be (at least at the beginning) an increase in the price of products depending on them. So why don't people ask directly for more taxes on those products, to drive the demand towards better alternatives? It seems to me that the people don't want to take their share of responsibility and accept that the they'll have to bear the costs of the so…
In fairness the carbon tax approach might not work so well in practice as people can just vote in populists to repeal it.
A regulatory framework of rising emissions standards ala California has the nanny state downside but is harder to undo (though Trump is giving it a college try).
No where in the above does “let’s just put everyone we don’t like in jail” actually work unless you’re fond of terrorism and civil war..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cutting off the supply without shifting demand doesn’t solve the problem though, it aggravates people to vote in populists who will deregulate.
Much of the developed world already has deregulating populists - that's half the damn problem. Except populism never lasts, and populist regimes are always incredibly divisive and usually end discredited. It's what comes next that matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I figure if someone buys a gasoline powered car, they've just committed us to 50-100 tons of CO2 emissions. Seems like that is what you want to stop not playing games with fuel taxes.
That seems incredibly low. 1kg of Beef produces ~1ton CO2 equivalent emissions
For a start, I can't even understand what is exactly the point of advocating any action against fossil fuel companies. After all, those companies only exist because we , directly or indirectly, buy their products. And we buy their products because they're cheaper than the alternatives, or even irreplaceable. It's as if everybody were asking the government to take action against the supermarket where we all do our gro…
The problem is dominated by structural issues and non-market forces. You can live the exact same lifestyle in France and US, and your carbon footprint will be almost 3 times higher in the US. Your personal buying habits cannot address the fact that energy grid is more carbon intensive from US, I cannot but electricity directly from a nuclear powerplant, UK government gives subsidies to fossil fuel companies, energy p…
No, of course not. But the end result of any policy to curb fossil fuels consumption will be an increase in their price to the consumers and a shift of the demand to other sources. So why don't activist simply demand more taxes on those fuels, instead of blaming the companies that produce them?
> most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there
You're a buyer of the products made by companies that use fossil fuels; so yes, in the end you're a buyer too.
Divestment also results in less shareholder oversight of emission heavy companies because environmentally conscious investors are selling their shares to investors with less scruples. This isn't just theoretical. According to Fossil Free, asset managers with about 10 trillion under management have committed to divesting. If you assume 10% of that is tracking something like the S&P 500, then these investors have sold…
Irony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whose voice carries more weight when campaigning to reduce fossil fuel usage: the person who profits off fossil fuels and will suffer as a direct result, or the person who has divested themselves completely? If you have a moral objection to receiving those funds, then just give them to a charity that might actually help. The way economics works, if you choose to divest yourself in this way, you are betting against th…
Choosing not to profit off of fossil fuels may be a 'poor decision' from a financial perspective, but it's a good moral decision. The fact that our financial systems incentivize poor moral behavior makes them poor systems.
It seems strange to me to cast everyone with an index fund as morally corrupt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I figure if someone buys a gasoline powered car, they've just committed us to 50-100 tons of CO2 emissions. Seems like that is what you want to stop not playing games with fuel taxes.
That seems incredibly low. 1kg of Beef produces ~1ton CO2 equivalent emissions
https://web.archive.org/web/20070709233421/http://www.defra....
That gives a range from 32.3kg per kg of beef to 15kg per kg of beef.