Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

51–60 of 88 posts

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

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> how else will you convince people to part with their property!

This is a great question, and a common misunderstanding! First, in case there's some confusion by other readers, I'm against private property controlling and directing labor, but not personal property -- that is to say that no one is going to take your xbox or Ford truck away from you. Those things are personal property, they are yours and should stay yours.

I do think, however, that private property -- the money used to exert control over others ("I'm the chief investor in X, so you must do what I say") -- should be replaced with cooperative ownership. Either through labor ownership, labor-customer ownership, or the state, as appropriate.

But, how do we achieve that? Yes, you could seize all the assets via force. But that's bad. Instead, you structure your incentives so it happens over time. Decrease the costs of running a co-op, reducing taxes or fees for businesses that are collectively owned. Increase taxes and fees proportional to the differences between the compensation of the highest paid individual and the lowest. Increase estate taxes, so no one immediately loses their money, but less capital passes down (obviously with gradients so as not to hurt most people). Expand property taxes to include other property at some nominal rate.

The other thing you could do is make it as easy to do the co-operative thing as it is to do the solo thing. Finding a lender to talk about cohousing is MUCH more difficult than finding one to talk about a mortgage. Finding a lawyer who can incorporate a co-op is much harder than finding out how to start an LLC. We would move significantly towards my ideals over time if the education and resources allocated were even close to parity.

It doesn't have to be a revolution and it doesn't have to be without the rule of law or anti-democratic.

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

#52
I read the article, and at this point, it's really just a bunch of politicians back-slapping each other and giving sound-bites about how they're taking a "stand for accountability". So when the oil companies report the most carbon emissions in the state, then what? If they do collect billions more in corporate taxes, will the accountability continue regarding the tax money? Sorry, I'm a jaded SOB.

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

#53

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…

The problem with Socialism is the requirement for others to forcibly partake in it, otherwise it doesn't work. It's not just about forcing everyone to pay higher taxes, at its core it's about rewarding everyone equally, despite the fact some people choose to work more. The only way to stop this is to force everyone to work the same amount, which cannot be done in a humane way. This means inevitably, some people will always work harder than others, and if they're not rewarded by the market, they'll be rewarded by circumventing the state and being corrupt. This is what happens every single time it is tried. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

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

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a part of me that hopes that maybe, just maybe, there will be someone who listens and discusses and introspects a little. It's happened to me before, "Oh, all anarchists are kiddies" types who have never sat down and had a real conversation with an anarchist to understand what that term means. Every once in a blue moon someone listens and learns and says, "Well, I don't agree with you, but at least I understa…

Meantime you've fed up to 99 trolls.

Well, before that it was 100 trolls. One fewer troll.

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

#55

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.

Consumers can't price externalities even given full information becuse they are not educated and not rational.

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

#56

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.

I though fossil fuels were heavily subsidized and taxed disproportionately low to their environmental impact.

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

#57
post #23
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.

Stop all domestic energy production and just import more from the Saudis. It's a fool-proof plan I tell ya.

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

#58

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.

Why not just tax the inputs? You dug some carbon out of the ground? You moved some carbon in through the border? You get taxed heavily for each tonne. Feel free to pass along the cost to the people who burn the stuff or dump it into the landfills. Use the tax to subsidize purchase of renewables for customers.

Cleaner, more equitable future awaits.

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

#59
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with Socialism is the requirement for others to forcibly partake in it, otherwise it doesn't work. It's not just about forcing everyone to pay higher taxes, at its core it's about rewarding everyone equally, despite the fact some people choose to work more. The only way to stop this is to force everyone to work the same amount, which cannot be done in a humane way. This means inevitably, some people will…

Someone could easily say the problem with capitalism is the requirement for others to forcibly partake in it. Like they send the police and army if you don't.

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

#60

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 is wrong with the Republican Party? Texas produces more renewable energy than California. The redneck attitude of do whatever you want on your land, and anti-regulation attitudes are far more important than political grandstanding.

The first question itself has a lot of answers, but sticking to the topic of climate/renewables it would be silly to pretend that the republican party actually cares about the environment (especially if it isn't financially beneficial to them in the short term).
Post reply on HN