Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#21

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Can we have a law that requires politicians to reveal their carbon emissions?

For example:

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/gavin-newsom-china-october-...

Gavin Newsome is traveling to China in October for a climate change effort:

Will he be flying? If so economy, business, first, or private?

What is the total carbon emissions of the travel to China?

How many staff will he be taking with him?

How many family members will he be taking with him?

Where will he be staying?

What will be the carbon emissions associated with his hotel stay?

How many lobyists and NGO personnel will he meet with?

What is the carbon emissions for their travel and hotel stays?

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#22

Post by AskSocialist »

g42gregory wrote: post #13
PaulHoule wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're full, it's a good thing. If we could get just 50,000 people to leave CA and go to a few swing states like PA and OH, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it.

What do you think will happen when the Socialists will take over? Do you think they will look kindly on your various "freedoms" to be "different"? Check out Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China. Don't think for a second that the San Francisco will stay the same under the totalitarian Socialist rule. The "intellectuals" and "different" people will be the first to go. Always happens, according to history, beca…

Ok, I'll nibble here -- I would describe myself as a Socialist, and I'm happy to have an open conversation about the question you've asked. (Unless your question was rhetorical and not intended to be a discussion.)

Can I start by asking you what type of Socialism you are most concerned with?

Socialism is a very broad term with different meanings to different people.

For example, I am a Socialist who is against autocratic rule. I believe the Soviet style communists (the countries you mentioned) weren't much better than other contemporary autocrats and in many cases were far worse. There are other Socialists who believe that any hierarchy is bad and should be removed. It's a very diverse community of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and a wide variety of beliefs, only a small minority of which believe in totalitarian or single party rule.

I support, for example, democratic workers councils, federation of guilds, and other such elective methods of leadership. I just happen to also believe that labor entitles you to a share of the profit of that labor, rather than investment wealth. I'd love to live in a world where every company was a workers-coop, and we reduced our profit motive and increased our work comfort motive.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#23

Post by asdff »

robd003 wrote: post #3

Yet another reason companies are fleeing California

Well that's kind of the point, get the companies that pollute with impunity out of our communities. Things like oil fields and refineries take up so much acreage for the amount of people they employ, and many are still situated adjacent to homes.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#24

Post by 01100011 »

FranchuFranchu wrote: post #16
g42gregory wrote: post #7

Is there any reason to expect that these additional costs won't be passed onto California consumers? All the physical industry is moving out of California. Intel's last plant was moved out around what, 2008 (?). What do we think is going to happen? There is no magic. Companies raise prices and/or move out to the more favorable locations, including overseas (e.g. China, Vietnam, Mexico).

Any carbon tax or carbon tax-like policy will be passed on. However, the _absence of a carbon tax_ already causes costs we don't see yet, when in the future, people die as a consequence of climate change.

> the _absence of a carbon tax_ already causes costs we don't see yet

We're talking about CA here. A single, albeit large, US state. As we see from emissions moving from the west to China, if CA imposes a tax then carbon emissions will just move somewhere else. The absence of a carbon tax in one US state likely has little effect on AGW. I would argue that interfering with market based production location may cause even more emissions as shipping costs may increase.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#25

Post by jtriangle »

g42gregory wrote: post #7

Is there any reason to expect that these additional costs won't be passed onto California consumers? All the physical industry is moving out of California. Intel's last plant was moved out around what, 2008 (?). What do we think is going to happen? There is no magic. Companies raise prices and/or move out to the more favorable locations, including overseas (e.g. China, Vietnam, Mexico).

Of course they'll just pass the costs onto consumers. California is highly competitive, and competition always means slimmer margins, and slimmer margins mean a business can't eat additional costs and remain viable.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#26

Post by ars »

yieldcrv wrote: post #20
PaulHoule wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're full, it's a good thing. If we could get just 50,000 people to leave CA and go to a few swing states like PA and OH, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it.

If anyone’s interested, I have a model developed that shows exactly which counties people would have to populate, which ones to ignore completely, while maintaining balance in the democrat areas for me, this is a non-partisan observation population wise, the republican party simply does not have the numbers to do the same. there are very few deeply red or blue counties, but uniquely the deeply red ones are sparsely p…

You forgot to take into account that people willing to move to rural locations are also more likely to change parties after they move.

i.e. you neglected second order effects.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#27

Post by asdff »

g42gregory wrote: post #7

Is there any reason to expect that these additional costs won't be passed onto California consumers? All the physical industry is moving out of California. Intel's last plant was moved out around what, 2008 (?). What do we think is going to happen? There is no magic. Companies raise prices and/or move out to the more favorable locations, including overseas (e.g. China, Vietnam, Mexico).

People moan about these sorts of costs to the consumer but its such small fish. Oh the gas tax in California makes it tough for people I'm sure, having to pay another whole $7 to fill up the tank. Meanwhile 1 bedroom rent might be around $2k depending on where you live in the state. Carbon tax could literally double the cost of food, sending a single person from maybe a $75 grocery run a week to a $150 run, and it still wouldn't amount to much more than maybe two concert tickets a month, still only a fraction of rent. Goes to show how inflated rent is relative to just about every other aspect of life in this state.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#28

Post by kelseyfrog »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #15

Can we just tax carbon and stop with all the bozo virtue signaling? Pretty please?

It's funny, because I could, with zero incredulity, say that information disclosure allows consumers to accurately price externalities and market-based solutions are the most efficient ways to arrive at realistic price equilibria.

Re: California to require firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

#30

Post by g42gregory »

AskSocialist wrote: post #22
g42gregory wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think will happen when the Socialists will take over? Do you think they will look kindly on your various "freedoms" to be "different"? Check out Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China. Don't think for a second that the San Francisco will stay the same under the totalitarian Socialist rule. The "intellectuals" and "different" people will be the first to go. Always happens, according to history, beca…

Ok, I'll nibble here -- I would describe myself as a Socialist, and I'm happy to have an open conversation about the question you've asked. (Unless your question was rhetorical and not intended to be a discussion.) Can I start by asking you what type of Socialism you are most concerned with? Socialism is a very broad term with different meanings to different people. For example, I am a Socialist who is against autocr…

I don't doubt that you are against the autocratic rule. The point is that you won't have a choice. There will be another gentleman (they always appear), who will decide that he should be in charge and will take power, by force. You will complain, he will put you in jail or worse. At that point, you will remember that you had to dismantle democratic checks & balances (how else will you convince people to part with their property!), but it will be too late for you and everybody else.
Post reply on HN