71–80 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only we could remind them somehow that inevitable migration, famine, and mass death is not as profitable as alternatives.
We could "remind them" by passing laws that made them pay for externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only we could remind them somehow that inevitable migration, famine, and mass death is not as profitable as alternatives.
We could "remind them" by passing laws that made them pay for externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Importing solar panels from China is a security risk. Like when Europe depended on Russian gas... Edit: US has no competitive way to manufacture panels, and with cheap imports, it never develops such industry!
One of the fascinating things about solar panels is that they continue to produce electricity for many years. Unlike a gallon of gas, once you burn it, it's gone.
The lesson here is clear, corporations won't do anything that's good for the ecology and survivability of our species unless forced.
If only we could remind them somehow that inevitable migration, famine, and mass death is not as profitable as alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of an alternative economic system that is more efficient at resource allocation in practice, not just theory?
There are none. But I don't want the economic system to be judged by its ability to do resource allocation. I want my economic system to be judged by its ability to improve metrics of human well being - and not even the median well-being, but the well-being of say the 10% percentile person in society. Sure, resource allocation can be a instrumental to those goals of human well being, but not the directly optimized me…
That requires resource allocation as a prerequisite and a functioning democracy that values this metric. Blaming the first one for not having the latter is a choice, but a strange one.
I think there's less to this than meets the eye. Previously, on https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/ : "We've set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030." and, in a table later, "Reduce 50% of our combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute emissions by 2030. Invest in nature-based and technology-based carbon removal solutions to neutralize our…
if it's a serious committment to being carbon-free, i think this sounds like a positive change. if it's a moonshot that they have no real intention of actually meeting, then it's a lot less impressive. i guess we'll see...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are none. But I don't want the economic system to be judged by its ability to do resource allocation. I want my economic system to be judged by its ability to improve metrics of human well being - and not even the median well-being, but the well-being of say the 10% percentile person in society. Sure, resource allocation can be a instrumental to those goals of human well being, but not the directly optimized me…
One issue with capitalism — and every alternative system would have its own variant of this problem — is rent seeking. Players become so powerful within the economic system that they no longer play by the rules, but rather write the rules to their benefit. This allows them to extract value instead of creating value. This is a run-away positive feedback loop which is kept in check by regular revolt and redistribution…
Another example of the latter, is that large companies should always be majority owned by their employees in a 1/N fashion. The idea being that even if such players try to rent-seek, at least the rent is being extracted in favor of normal people rather than a small class of rich people.
Meanwhile China is on track to install as much solar power in the past year as the US has in its entire history . The US has maintained steep tariffs on solar panels. Clean energy isn't even some virtuous thing, it's just no-brainer smart energy policy. The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game.
> The US has maintained steep tariffs on solar panels. Because the US should be doing it domestically, just like China is. The incentive to do is partially based on tariffs, but the incentive hasn't spurred the private sector and supply chain maintainers into action, and a more comprehensive strategy would need to be done. There is no consensus for further subsidies from the national government to spur this productio…
And it would be a lot cheaper to run those factories if solar power were cheap.
Meanwhile China is on track to install as much solar power in the past year as the US has in its entire history . The US has maintained steep tariffs on solar panels. Clean energy isn't even some virtuous thing, it's just no-brainer smart energy policy. The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game.