How concerned are you about the climate impacts your child will witness or experience?

[birdman]

I like our current economic system for the most part.

Sure, it's been pretty good for Western society

I mentioned that because our increasing population creates or contributes to so many of the problems we are trying to address - feeding and housing more people requires related manufacturing, transportation, destruction of natural environments, etc.

Well, technically, no type of transit is free - it may be paid for in a different way or by a different entity but it is never going to be free (unless everyone is walking). Automobile emissions are definitely a terrible problem that we haven't really solved yet - it is my understanding that producing and powering electric vehicles creates as much or more of an issue as the old fashioned cars, the emissions and environmental destruction just takes place in a different place (That may not be totally accurate, I am no expert).

When you say capitalism what do you really mean - the profit motive? If we are really shipping products like peaches multiple times within the supply chain it can only be for one reason - it is more profitable to do it that way. Why is it more profitable to do that? I don't know the answer but it is clearly less efficient so it would have to be massively cheaper to can them in the second place than in the first place in order to make all the shipping worth it. Figure out and address why that is and you solve the problem.

Instead of getting rid of capitalism maybe we harness it - make solving the issues of emissions, pollution, climate change, etc. profitable enough and they will be solved.

Just to be clear - I am not being argumentative on this topic - I'm sure our politics are far apart but I enjoy learning about viewpoints I don't understand... Climate is an incredibly complicated issue. The only beef I have ever had with the climate change "movement", if you will, is that I believe they exaggerate the extent to which we (we being the climate science community) really understand all of the causes and effects that factor into the global climate. I have no doubt that our climate is changing and that we should be doing what we can to impact that change in positive ways.

First, people can still have babies and also have zero population growth. 2 parents -> 2 kids = replacement rate population growth.

Also, the objectives of most big business is now about stock prices and investor satisfaction, not about costs of doing business, not about efficiency of production, not about profits even, is about stockholders. The objectives of business and the economy are largely removed from the real-world consequences of doing business so long as stock prices go up by half a penny a week no one cares. So the reason we ship peaches over the ocean two or three times before you get them on a store shelf is because it makes the stockholder happier/richer, somehow.

I am not a rabid communist like MHB or townie (winky face emoji), but do I see not reality in which solving the issues of pollution and climate change are profitable to stockholders without government intervention to create markets incentivizing green invention and development, and putting the costs of polluting back on the polluters. Our society has set up our entire economic system to privatize the profits and socialize the costs and what you're talking about would shift the cost of doing business from collective public impact to companies and stockholders that did the polluting in the first place. The people with money are going fight that shift in every way that they can because they won't want to spend their own money to clean up what they regard as, and heretofore has been, everyone else's mess.

 

[06deacon]

Instead of getting rid of capitalism maybe we harness it - make solving the issues of emissions, pollution, climate change, etc. profitable enough and they will be

Sounds like either regulations that will force action regardless of profitability or deficit spending corporate subsidies. Either way it’s heavy government intervention in a way that folks will find it hard to vote for.

I’m not advocating getting rid of capitalism but posts like the above that are heavy on “figure it out” and light on workability are not necessarily the best defense.

 

[PhDeac]

Maybe not, but you WILL spend $10 to figure out how to make $120 - or even how to make $100 more quickly so you can make $100 more often over time.

Right. That's capitalism. And if spending $10 reveals that increasing harm to the environment and exploiting workers will make $120, then you'll do it. The goal of this exercise is to NOT do that.

 

[PhDeac]

Sounds like either regulations that will force action regardless of profitability or deficit spending corporate subsidies. Either way it’s heavy government intervention in a way that folks will find it hard to vote for.

I’m not advocating getting rid of capitalism but posts like the above that are heavy on “figure it out” and light on workability are not necessarily the best defense.

People vote for "heavy government intervention" all the time if the goal is to punish others who aren't like them or to protect their own financial interest. The switch would need to flip from spending a ton of money on police and military to spending on health care and addressing climate change.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Duh - I was thinking of inefficient power plants as in the local/regional plants where the power is produced.

I still think the problem is much more complicated than just 'drive an EV'. In addition to all the environmental problems associated with manufacturing the batteries, the power used to charge the EVs is largely generated by fossil fuels - so increasing the use of EVs by an order of magnitude is going to increase the need for power generation and distribution which, while more efficient than a car, is still creating all the environmental issues we know and love. So generate power using renewable energy you say? Sure - but those all have their own issues that need solving. The tremendous land needs of both solar and wind are problematic, as well as all the fossil fuels and minerals that go into the production of solar panels - along with their basic inefficiencies.
All problems that I believe will be solved either partially or completely over the next couple of generations.

This post reeks of “well this solution doesn’t fix everything so we might as well do nothing”

 

[rawarr]

I think most of our electric grid is powered by coal and natural gas still? Probably varies in location but department of energy .gov says only ~20% of power comes from renewable sources. I’m not a smart man (Forrest Gump voice) but I’ve always wondered if the switch to electric is actually a solution. Maybe if we had a truly renewable battery/engine/whatever, it would supersede all the lobbying bullshit.

 

[06deacon]

People vote for "heavy government intervention" all the time if the goal is to punish others who aren't like them or to protect their own financial interest. The switch would need to flip from spending a ton of money on police and military to spending on health care and addressing climate change.

Yeah exactly.

It’s probably not any more palatable of an argument than ending capitalism but a certain political party is hell bent on not doing anything like the above for climate change so maybe they should be destroyed too.

 

[scooter84]

This post reeks of “well this solution doesn’t fix everything so we might as well do nothing”

That is not at all what I meant but ignoring the issues created by switching to EVs is no better than ignoring the issues with internal combustion. If EVs are better systemically then we should increase their use but we should still be aware of the issues they create and be working hard to solve THOSE issues as well.

 

[scooter84]

Sure, it's been pretty good for Western society

First, people can still have babies and also have zero population growth. 2 parents -> 2 kids = replacement rate population growth.

No kidding - but, in most societys at least, that is not what is happening - population continues to grow as a whole.

Also, the objectives of most big business is now about stock prices and investor satisfaction, not about costs of doing business, not about efficiency of production, not about profits even, is about stockholders. The objectives of business and the economy are largely removed from the real-world consequences of doing business so long as stock prices go up by half a penny a week no one cares. So the reason we ship peaches over the ocean two or three times before you get them on a store shelf is because it makes the stockholder happier/richer, somehow.

I agree with you here and posted about the problems of how businesses are judged before (short term, stock price driven, etc.) But, if a company ships peaches all over the world for processing and that causes them to make less money (profit) then eventually the market is going to figure that out and the stock price will suffer. Stock prices don't go up because a company wastes resources, stock prices go up because someone thinks the company is, or is going to be, successful - and success is measured by profits - at least eventually. Some companies are worth billions and have never turned a profit, I know, but typically that is just people betting on their future success.

I am not a rabid communist like MHB or townie (winky face emoji), but do I see not reality in which solving the issues of pollution and climate change are profitable to stockholders without government intervention to create markets incentivizing green invention and development, and putting the costs of polluting back on the polluters. Our society has set up our entire economic system to privatize the profits and socialize the costs and what you're talking about would shift the cost of doing business from collective public impact to companies and stockholders that did the polluting in the first place. The people with money are going fight that shift in every way that they can because they won't want to spend their own money to clean up what they regard as, and heretofore has been, everyone else's mess.

I am the last one to argue for government intervention so this is a tough problem for me. Taxes and regulation are the main levers the government can pull to influence behavior. I am not in favor of either one, generally, but judicious and intelligent application of both is probably the only way to create a profit motive for corporations to clean up (literally and figuratively) their act.

 

[deacdiggler]

seems like so long as we don't need the extra electricity for EVs, we won't try to get it. Demand will drive that solution. We know how to create clean electricity at moderate scale

 

[TownieDeac]

Me, getting into this at a dinner party

 

[Wakeforest22890]

This was me reading the Pout Pout Fish to my niece a couple weeks ago at the beach:

turns page

"Nationalize the airlines? I don't know how that got in there sorry sweetie. But something to keep in mind!"

 

[PhDeac]

One of my friends turns to history when he gets drunk. Long long ago when I was young and fun and single, a few of us guys were out at a bar and met some girls including this smoking hot redhead who worked at a local hospital. Things were going well until he started doing his whole drunk history bit and we lost them and they left. Little did I know a few years later they'd make a show out of that premise.

 

[birdman]

@scooter84 how would a market profit driven solution to climate change work? What would that look like? How would it just emerge without a planned economy? We’ve known about climate change for at least 40 years and it’s been common knowledge for 25 years and mostly what we get from business leaders is “it’s too expensive!” and “why doesn’t China pay their fair share?” So I am full of doubt that business leader will lead us out of this. But convince me otherwise. What does a capitalist, business driven solution look like?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

If EVs are better systemically then we should increase their use but we should still be aware of the issues they create and be working hard to solve THOSE issues as well.

Sure then let’s do that. Are you voting for politicians who will do that?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

I agree with you here and posted about the problems of how businesses are judged before (short term, stock price driven, etc.) But, if a company ships peaches all over the world for processing and that causes them to make less money (profit) then eventually the market is going to figure that out and the stock price will suffer. Stock prices don't go up because a company wastes resources, stock prices go up because someone thinks the company is, or is going to be, successful - and success is measured by profits - at least eventually. Some companies are worth billions and have never turned a profit, I know, but typically that is just people betting on their future success.

Are you saying that market actors are rational?

 

[deaconson]

Sounds like either regulations that will force action regardless of profitability or deficit spending corporate subsidies. Either way it’s heavy government intervention in a way that folks will find it hard to vote for.

I’m not advocating getting rid of capitalism but posts like the above that are heavy on “figure it out” and light on workability are not necessarily the best defense.

The GQP no longer cares to even pretend they have policy beyond self enrichment.

 

[deaconson]

That is not at all what I meant but ignoring the issues created by switching to EVs is no better than ignoring the issues with internal combustion. If EVs are better systemically then we should increase their use but we should still be aware of the issues they create and be working hard to solve THOSE issues as well.

For 30+ years I've not believed in climate change but right now, in this moment, that my party position is clearly, and likely irreversible, and wrong I'm gonna try a little whataboutism. Did it work?

 

[scooter84]

@scooter84 how would a market profit driven solution to climate change work? What would that look like? How would it just emerge without a planned economy? We’ve known about climate change for at least 40 years and it’s been common knowledge for 25 years and mostly what we get from business leaders is “it’s too expensive!” and “why doesn’t China pay their fair share?” So I am full of doubt that business leader will lead us out of this. But convince me otherwise. What does a capitalist, business driven solution look like?

Sorry - I am not smart enough to know all the answers of "how" - I am just the idea guy! But I do understand what motivates people - including business leaders - and that is money. A big deterrent to greater use of, and investment in, renewable energy has always been that it is more expensive than fossil fuels. When fossil fuels costs rise you see people turning to renewable sources. When there are big tax incentives for using renewal sources, or for driving EVs, or whatever, you see people doing those things.

 

[PhDeac]

scooter, your questions seem to be asking how to do capitalism within socialism. Part of the point is that the money motivation leads to climate change so moving away from the money motivation is required to reverse climate change.

With respect to market driven solutions, if you want the answers of "how" from others, you should be prepared to provide them yourself.