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

> at its core it's about rewarding everyone equally, despite the fact some people choose to work more

I hear this frequently, but I do not believe it is axiomatic. I believe we should provide a sense of equal minimum reward, a baseline level of food, shelter, amenities that everyone gets access to. Even if they cannot work or choose to work the minimum amount.

Again, it's important to recall that "Socialism" includes everything from Soviets to Anarchists to Democratic Socialists and many (many) flavors in between.

But it's not fundamentally antithetical to Socialism to recognize the people who choose to work more. The rewards structure might look different, depending on what flavor of Socialism you prefer, but I would expect that someone who goes above and beyond also tends to attract rewards (whether those are luxuries, time, recognition, or other things).

Even my anarchist/socialist friends would recognize that many luxuries are limited -- we cannot all have infinite bottles of aged whiskey -- but if you put in the extra time to really help out at the distillery, or really devote a lot of time to making their barrels, it stands to reason you'd be recognized for that.

I also genuinely believe that when you remove the necessity of "I need to work an excess to ensure I can afford to support my family's basic needs", the desire to work more comes from a passion for the work or for securing 'nice to haves'. There's nothing saying a worker's co-op couldn't decide to, for instance, nominate 10% of their peers each month for extra rewards or something.

Texas also produces more non-renewable energy than California.

Texas gets 8.5% of its energy from renewables. California gets 16.5%. (The state with the most from renewables is Washington with 50%, followed by South Dakota at 43%, and Maine at 38%).

For electricity the US average is 39% from renewables. Texas is a little below average at 33%. California is at 49%. (Highest is Vermont at 99+%, South Dakota at 83%, and Washington at 82%).

In terms of CO2 Mt/TWh the US average is 402. Texas is 428. California is 229. (The best are Vermont at 5, Washington at 100, Oregon at 143, and South Dakota at 145).

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

Not everything grows in California.

> But it's not fundamentally antithetical to Socialism to recognize the people who choose to work more.

Fair point, and I think there are definitely enough resources to support people with disabilities or incapable of working for other extreme reasons. I guess the main discussion would be around where exactly to draw the line such that we're not forcing people to pay for those that choose to not work.

>I also genuinely believe that when you remove the necessity of "I need to work an excess to ensure I can afford to support my family's basic needs"

It depends on how we define "excess work". Unfortunately some people's excess work is another person's daily morning routine. If the productive person is not fairly rewarded, they will stop trying or even worse try something illegal or immoral. I think there are still a number of creative solutions to try, things like facilitating sponsorships for people of all ages to learn new skills, or investing in a public "linkedin" of sorts that is free and uses AI to match people with jobs. There are many creative and cheap things to try, and artificially imposing a certain "living wage" which constantly changes isn't addressing the root of the problem, which is that many people don't understand how to leverage the job market, their skills, etc.

I'm willing to bet that a substantial set of business, due to the nature of their industry, have no viable or available means to determine how much carbon they produce, much less for their suppliers or customers. What is the solution for these sorts of situations? Will they be fined out of existence?