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

31–40 of 88 posts

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

#31

Post by jtriangle »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #15

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

Strictly speaking, we already do. We're taxing carbon-based fuel quite a bit.

All it really does is make things more expensive though. You can say that such things are funding social services, but, realistically, all of government is funded by an unfathomable amount of debt, so raising taxes, or creating new taxes, isn't likely to change much of anything outside of increasing how much debt is available.

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

#32

Post by yieldcrv »

ars wrote: post #26
yieldcrv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't neglect that, I didn't write it

I think it is very interesting to wonder how effective this would be

there are many circumstances where it becomes more apparent that a party isnt representing interests relevant to that area once someone is there, especially since some places would require residency for 7-8 months before being eligible to vote there

I don't care about the outcome, I navigate a lot of countries, but I’ll sell things to partisans, they’re very emotional and deeply invested in the outcome

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

#33

Post by jwells89 »

ars wrote: post #8
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.

Don't people tend to change party when they move from cities to rural, and vice versa? So we could also end the Democratic party as we know it by convincing more people to move out of cities.

As someone who grew up rural and has spent most of his adult life in cities, IME people change when going rural → urban, but don’t going the other way. Those who “change” after going rural tend to be those who previously straddled the fence in the city.

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

#34

Post by Daishiman »

01100011 wrote: post #24
FranchuFranchu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

This is just one step in a series of future legislation being planned in many developed countries to price carbon from imported goods.

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

#35

Post by adasdasdas »

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.

Just to be clear, we want costs to be passed on because the real solution to climate change is an adjustment to our consumption habits.

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

#36

Post by labster »

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…

While I appreciate the sentiment behind this new account, it’s also feeding a troll. Anyone equating SF to Soviet Russia is not looking for reasoned argument.

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

#37

Post by akira2501 »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #11
nmitchko wrote: post #10

California politicians confused why large companies continue to mass-migrate to Texas

Humans repeatedly confused why world just goes bust.

Moving tax generating business around America like deck chairs while China just blasts pollution without check is meaningless virtue bullying. It's not serious and it ignores real long term consequences in the name of short term fashion.

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

#38

Post by toomuchtodo »

chung8123 wrote: post #5

This will help all the of the corporate tools like concur. You will have to have software to track all of this. To track supply chain emissions you are going to have to have a chain of logging that is trusted.

Don’t forget to track worker commuting.

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

#39

Post by PaulHoule »

ars wrote: post #26
yieldcrv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people move because they think they'll find a place that better matches their politics.

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

#40

Post by sokoloff »

ars wrote: post #8
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.

Don't people tend to change party when they move from cities to rural, and vice versa? So we could also end the Democratic party as we know it by convincing more people to move out of cities.

Which comes first? People start to have ideas that the city living isn't working out for them because they don't like X, Y, and Z and once they move, they realize that means they are now more red than a decade ago?

Or blue-no-matter-who Democrats move to a rural area and then change their beliefs?

I suspect it's more the former than the latter (you move after your beliefs change more than before).

Post reply on HN