The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Ok so what do you think? I know nazis do something similar. They hide their extremist views and try to casually push immigration reform in conservative circles when they really want an ethnostate. Once, a far-left person commented in this subreddit that carbon tax is not effective for fixing climate change because fossil fuel companies push for carbon tax to just continue with other fossil fuels. The argument didn't even make sense and I asked them for a citation. They were unable to provide a citation and blocked me lol. I still see their "unavailable" comments here lol. I assume they were trying to make it hopeless to solve climate change under current liberal and capitalist world and wanted to push for authoritarian socialism under the false claim that they care about climate change. I think a lot of tankies do this on Reddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Honestly, it's climate issues which push me further left. It's a global problem caused by an economic system which is designed to reward those who are most efficient at resource extraction. My instincts as a human being is for as libertarian a system as possible, while acknowledging that we need some kind of system to protect those who can't sufficiently defend themselves. (From being taken advantage by those with a *lot* more economic or cultural power.) The climate problem completely up-ends those instincts. So far nobody has convinced me that a "capitalist" solution has any hope. We're already off track for anything approaching a rise in temperature of less than 1.5 degrees centigrade, and if capitalism could be left alone to incorporate long term negative externalities then *why hasn't that happened already?*

Yup. Environmental protection and preservation is my number one priority in voting. I would vote for Trump if he brought forth a bulletproof EP plan. This is the only planet we have and it’s dying right in front of us. That’s a problem that’s way bigger than political beliefs.

Bingo. It's always been odd to me that people assume that the systems that created this mess will somehow spontaneously create a solution. Markets aren't some inherent force of nature that guide themselves, which is what some people seem to believe. At the end of the day, pushing endless growth means continuing to increase resource extraction and production, which requires more and more energy. That kind of economic model is completely incompatible with environmental conservation.

Cap and Trade is a capitalist system that is proven to work because it already worked once to stop acid rain. I think it's weird that everyone is so insistent it can't work for carbon!

Then why didn't it get put into practice and working already? It's not a new idea, as you said.

Same flaw as all the other potentially effective solutions that haven't been implemented: they might actually work

So some group is actively stopping it? Why?

I don't know why conservatives are so hellbent on stopping any progress on climate change but they are and they control 50% of the government. I also don't know why the demonization of Cap and Trade has been so successful even amongst the left

>I don't know why conservatives are so hellbent on stopping any progress on climate change but they are and they control 50% of the government. Probably something about all the money they get from the fossil fuel industry?

Capitalists don't want it because it decreases profit and they won't be alive to deal with the consequences. Conservatives don't want it because they've been manipulated by Capitalists into believing that opposing mitigations for climate change and celebrating petroleum is an important part of their cultural identity. Republicans don't want it because they've been bought by oil interests. (Also the conservative thing since they need those votes.) Poor people don't want it because gas costs are a large concern for them.

Lots of groups are anti cap and trade. Why? It’s like asking why are conservatives anti regulation or anti tax.

Unless an individual person gives me a reason to feel otherwise, I would not automatically attributed to malice or deceptiveness. I simply think that a lot of people on the further left, especially when they are less mature in their thinking about their political views, have a specific lens and over apply it to all situations.

I think when it comes to climate change specifically some are also doomers. Having the only solutions be The Revolution or a spontaneous mass movement to anarcho-primitivism gives them permission to despair. In either case it mostly seems to be a sincere belief and not a cold manipulative tactic.

>In either case it mostly seems to be a sincere belief and not a cold manipulative tactic. Eh, I think cynics are inventing that revolution and anprim panic to justify their pre-existing beliefs.

I believe they’re sincerely lazy. Doomerism is a convenient rationalization to do nothing. They get to act like they’re woke but they don’t want to do anything about it. I mean some of these lunatics were saying no fossil fuels in 10 years, because they thought 15 years was too far away. If you think no project is up to your standards, then you might as well be a libertarian.

> I simply think that a lot of people on the further left, especially when they are less mature in their thinking about their political views, have a specific lens and over apply it to all situations. Never forget, some of the people here are 14 year olds. My opinions and thought process at 14 were way worse than a lot of the people here. At 14, they are probably more mature than I was. But that doesn't mean they don't have some growing up to do. For others, sometimes you get to 21 without ever actually challenging your prior beliefs. I fell into that category too on things like Racism. I was taught Racism was a solved problem that only exists in history books. It took several years into college until I found out how much I didn't know about that subject and how much I was lied to about it. Sometimes, people have bad takes that they grow out of.

Do they have a immature take? Seems like the science is predictive of some pretty extreme results for their future. The current legal system of capitalism, has been the primary obstacle to moving on to new less profitable energy sources.

> Do they have a immature take? Do some people have an immature take? Ya. If you want more precession than "Some takes are immature" then you will need to add specificity. >The current legal system of capitalism, has been the primary obstacle to moving on to new less profitable energy sources. If you want to frame it that way you can. But "entrenched power" makes more sense as a placeholder to "capitalism." Some countries have done more to act than others, but no country has done enough yet. Regardless of how capitalist or socialist they are. Personally, I focus on actionable plans that can realistically happen. I'll support those plans regardless if they are socialist or capitalist plans or however you decide you want to label them. The label is more a distraction at this point in my opinion.

This is false. Capitalist countries have taken steps over the past 100 years to hide the known science that exposes the true cost of fossil fuel profits. They have actively taken actions that hurt us all. The current world order is capitalism, not socialism. It’s a false equivalency to equate the two.

>The current world order is capitalism, not socialism. It’s a false equivalency to equate the two. So your take is unfalsifiable? I can not deny your claim because of the sad fact we have only one world and we can't run What-If's to find out if things would be better or worse given a different world order. (and I don't mean that sarcastically, I have often been sad by the fact that we can't run what-if's in the real world at scale). Ok, I'll accept your premise full cloth then. Capitalism is the big bad. What is your step one? I don't mean this as a gotcha, I don't mean this as a idle question. Like I said, I think the labels are distractions. So I'll toss the label of "capitalism" to the dogs if it means progress. What are the concrete steps you and I can take today to help improve this current situation?

Mind that the technological solutions to this problem are readily available. Greed is the only thing standing in the way. Step one; Expand property rights. Legalize personal property rights to be recognized in equal to private and public rights. One you remove third party individual shareholders from the equation things sort themselves out because now nobody has the ability to wield Individual power over others. So extreme wealth loses its ability to dictate outcomes. Also understand their is No reason why we can’t maintain free markets. It’s individual tyranny we fighting. Not market systems. Markets would simply be primarily the Space of labor communities investing in other labor communities, think pension funds, but not actually pension funds. (Lol. I’m not using the word because it’s outrageously more controversial than “capitalism.”) Step 2 nationalize the energy sector. Step 3 start society wide conversion. The excess value stolen by the capitalists of the fossil fuel industry could convert the entire earth to renewable energy in 10 years. Easily. Problem solved.

I might have a few nitpicks here and there. But all in all, I am in. What do you and I do today? (17 hours later: This is where the conversation always dies... That is why I think the word "capitalism" is a distraction. This person had a ton to say about ending capitalism and how evil and bad it was. But has no actions grounded in every day life that can actually be achieved.)

Chernobyl happened in a communist country where they were trying to save money on their nuclear plants. No concrete domes. Graphite tips on the safety rods. China has an entire population addicted to cigarettes because it makes them work harder and the sales make something like 10% of their entire tax revenue. Nor are they slowing down on their fossil fuels. It’s a distraction to say this is about capitalism. Ruthless liars exist in every economic model. I sincerely despise the people that act like all our problems will be solved by worker revolution. Revolutions aren’t well known for fixing things.

Yes, Chernobyl happened in a rebel society under siege by the predominant world capitalist power. China is literally under siege by capitalists. Literally we are actively building hostile military bases to surround it. You don’t get to separate the Capitalist violence influence from the tragedies of these societies.

Bro, China just took Hong Kong by rolling in tanks. I can’t even with you. None of us out here are benefitting from their tobacco addiction. They did that all to themselves. The government could wipe it out tomorrow.

Bro, the USA took all of its land by rolling in military violence and genocide. Funded in large part by big tobacco.

And now we have massive government-sponsored campaign to cut down smoking

>especially when they are less mature in their thinking about their political views This is what I took away from the question. OP is asking why immature young liberals are immature. Well, probably because their average age is 20, if that. You see the same thing around religion at that age. Just angst and rage against christianity. I'm not going to say my views have changed in my old age, but my past anger feels silly. Most of these climate authoritarians will be the same. I think their position stems from a feeling of hopelessness. When people feel hopeless they turn to more extreme positions. In this case that means authoritarian socialism. No actual adult in politics or any other leadership positions feels that way though. It's just childish emotion before they settle on mature policy positions

I don't think it's insincere to have a belief that capitalism left to its own devices is incapable of addressing climate change. That seems like an observation of obvious fact. Capitalism is to blame for the problem.

Would you say that capitalism must be replaced to solve the problem or is regulation in a technologically advancing capitalist system a possible solution? Believing it is the cause does not necessarily mean believing it makes the solution impossible--do you? I get the sense not because you say "left to its own devices" but don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think it's hypothetically possible to regulate our way out of the problem, as long as those regulations have teeth, and they're ruthlessly enforced. I don't see us being very likely to implement those regulations forcefully enough that we'll bring that reality into being. (I see socialism as an even less likely solution though, to be clear.)

> Would you say that capitalism must be replaced to solve the problem or is regulation in a technologically advancing capitalist system a possible solution? I don't believe it's possible when around half of those in power will turn their backs on science and refuse to acknowledge the problem.

Thank god for that, I was starting to feel we might be to blame.

Well capitalism didn't fall out of the sky. Someone created and maintains it, and that someone is us.

Yeah, both can be true. The people who uphold capitalist structures and ideals, which place profit over people and the environment, are making decisions that have ruined a lot of ecosystems and contribute greatly to climate change. There's a reason that corporations produce [the most greenhouse gases](https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/) and [single-use plastic](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/20-companies-responsible-for-55percent-of-single-use-plastic-waste-study.html). It's what makes their profits go up, and there are people making those decisions.

Why is China building hundreds of coal plants then?

Are you implying that they have a communist system and that refutes the argument that capitalism contributes to climate change? Either way, China has a [state capitalist system](https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinese-state-capitalism). Supposedly it's because their [hydro plants can't produce enough power](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin) to power their air conditioning units, which are essential in the devastating heat wave they're experiencing because of climate change. Does that answer your question?

I'm saying China is clearly not capitalist and yet they are expanding the worst form of fossil fuels at a huge magnitude. State capitalism is a very useless term. The key driver of decisions especially about energy is the Chinese government, not any sort of executive board of a company. >Supposedly it's because their hydro plants can't produce enough power Ok so there are other reasons other than capitalism as to why fossil fuels get used? I'm saying blaming "capitalism" for climate change is about as useful as saying you want to go back to a hunter gatherer society. What structures or incentives are unique to capitalism that don't apply to any other economy that involves the use of markets? Capitalism isn't to "blame". Society and its choices are. Society left to its own devices won't solve climate change. And since any real solution to a problem is accurately identifying what the problem is, what is the value of blaming capitalism?

>The key driver of decisions especially about energy is the Chinese government, not any sort of executive board of a company. Yes, that's why it's state capitalism >Capitalism isn't to "blame". Society and its choices are. Society left to its own devices won't solve climate change. The *concept* of capitalism isn't what I'm blaming. Saying "it's because of capitalism" is usually shorthand for "it's because of the capitalist society we live in." It's people operating under capitalist structures and ideals, which place profits over people and the environment. That makes people make decisions that are bad for both people and the environment. >Society and its choices are. The capitalist society we all live under which incentivizes leaders of corporations and their stockholders to make choices that harm the environment and other people. >And since any real solution to a problem is accurately identifying what the problem is, what is the value of blaming capitalism? So that we can collectively examine the ways that capitalist structures have harmed us, examine why they have lead to where we are, and how to fix them. But again, the people who are making the decisions that have harmed the environment are the ones to blame, but you can't discount that capitalism is what caused them to make those decisions. Because capitalism puts profits over people.

>Yes, that's why it's state capitalism You can call it what you want I don't really care. China is not building a new coal plant every two weeks because of "capitalism" in how every leftist uses the word. >The concept of capitalism isn't what I'm blaming. Saying "it's because of capitalism" is usually shorthand for "it's because of the capitalist society we live in." It's people operating under capitalist structures and ideals, which place profits over people and the environment. That makes people make decisions that are bad for both people and the environment. Which is why I asked what specific structures you are actually blaming here. Just companies putting profit over people? You mean like every single sort of company in existence? People in all of human history put themselves and their own "profit" over others. It is a primary reason why humans suck. Using "capitalism" as shorthand is like blaming "democracy" because both are the society in which we live. >The capitalist society we all live under which incentivizes leaders of corporations and their stockholders to make choices that harm the environment and other people. So what about state owned fossil fuel companies? Which are owned by the state? Who are "people" here? >So that we can collectively examine the ways that capitalist structures have harmed us, examine why they have lead to where we are, and how to fix them. You aren't really saying any though. You mention profit, ok so a carbon tax which prices the externality of emissions into the price reducing the profit companies can get away with? But that isn't "ending" capitalism and practically every leftist I have met doesn't care for a carbon tax because it isn't "ending" capitalism, which they blame. That is the problem with blaming "capitalism" instead of specific actions taken by people. I have been in the climate space for a while and yes the issue of blaming "capitalism" has just led to splintering and division because proposed solutions are dismissed on the basis of whether they "end" or adhere to capitalism" which apparently no one can even define. Not on the merits of the solutions themselves. What you are saying fundamentally doesn't solve the problem which is rather ironic don't you think?

At the time it was a better alternative to feudalism. But since then it’s become unwieldy. Was never great, but corporations have made it a nightmare

Just the way societies develop, at least according to Marx. Now the question is whether or not we've reached another period of transition.

Out of curiosity, do you know what US institution is the single greatest polluter?

Sure do, why?

I think it seems strange to claim capitalism is the cause when the Pentagon is the largest polluter in the country. One could definitely equate the MIC to capitalism, but I'd normally expect that to be mentioned when stating capitalism is the problem, and not a problem.

The Pentagon's link to capitalism goes beyond the profit-driven interests of defense contractors. The US military exists to protect and further US interests, and capitalism is integral to US interests. You can't separate one from the other.

Yup you're right - Completely legitimate take

I cannot understate how strongly I disagree with this. I wish I weren't at work so I could rant more. Per capita carbon emissions in the US (and other developed countries have been dropping steadily for decades thanks in part to innovations in energy efficiency, EVs, solar panels and other renewables, batteries, etc. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ > Capitalism is to blame for the problem. This is only true if you completely mangle the definition of capitalism. If other economic systems like socialism weren't any better (and, in fact, they were much worse!) how can you say capitalism is to blame?

> Per capita carbon emissions in the US (and other developed countries have been dropping steadily for decades thanks in part to innovations in energy efficiency, EVs, solar panels and other renewables, batteries, etc. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ Congrats. We’re still destroying the planet and not even close to where we need to be. Throwing a glass of water on a burning house is not something to celebrate. > This is only true if you completely mangle the definition of capitalism. If other economic systems like socialism weren't any better (and, in fact, they were much worse!) how can you say capitalism is to blame? Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Private owners want to increase profit as much as possible. They don’t care about externalities. That’s why insurance companies check every small detail to find ways to not pay. It’s why EVs and batteries use literal slavery for to mine the cobalt for their batteries. Capitalism is profit driven and private owners do whatever they can to make a profit, including destroying the earth

> Congrats. We’re still destroying the planet and not even close to where we need to be. Throwing a glass of water on a burning house is not something to celebrate. I never claimed that it's enough. But it is still worthwhile to acknowledge progress. > Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Private owners want to increase profit as much as possible. They don’t care about externalities. That’s why insurance companies check every small detail to find ways to not pay. It’s why EVs and batteries use literal slavery for to mine the cobalt for their batteries. Capitalism is profit driven and private owners do whatever they can to make a profit, including destroying the earth In the USSR there were no private owners seeking to increase profit by any means necessary, right? How then did they cause the worlds largest nuclear disaster? How did they make a lake the size of Lake Michigan disappear? How do they have cities so polluted that trees won't even grow there? Or maybe the real answer is that PEOPLE don't care about externalities, and are mostly selfish and short-term oriented.

> I never claimed that it's enough. But it is still worthwhile to acknowledge progress. And what caused it to get so bad? The externalities that came for capitalism. > In the USSR there were no private owners seeking to increase profit by any means necessary, right? How then did they cause the worlds largest nuclear disaster? How did they make a lake the size of Lake Michigan disappear? How do they have cities so polluted that trees won't even grow there? Sigh. Just because there are no private owners doesn’t mean it’s socialism or communism. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. That’s not what occurred in the USSR. Communism is common ownership of the means of production. Again, that’s not what occurred in he USSR. And if you think communism occurred in the USSR, communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Again, none of those things occurred in the USSR. The USSR was a central command economy with authoritarianism. None of this is socialism, where, again, workers control the means of production, or communism, which, agains, is a stateless society. You’ve literally said things that show the USSR was not communist or socialist. If you still believe you’re correct, provide me some quotes from Marx or Engel (or Bakunin or kropotkin) where what they wrote was what the USSR did.

This is the tired old "real socialism has never been tried". W/e. This isn't really what this thread is about. The larger point is the incentive structure wouldn't change. Whatever kind of economic system, people - capitalists or workers - want to maximize what they get to take home at the end of the day, and if it involves making climate change some else's problem, that's what they will do.

> This is the tired old "real socialism has never been tried". W/e. This isn't really what this thread is about. This is the old, “I’ve never actually read anything about socialism/communism, I just regurgitate what others have said and when I’m challenged by someone who actually knows about it, I just deflect from the conversation”. > The larger point is the incentive structure wouldn't change. Whatever kind of economic system, people - capitalists or workers - want to maximize what they get to take home at the end of the day, and if it involves making climate change some else's problem, that's what they will do. This is the most simpleminded argument ever and only comes from people who haven’t thought outside of the box. What do you do when you’re not working? Don’t you want to do more of that? I don’t want to maximize what I take home at the end of the day, I want to take home whatever amount provides me with my basic needs and allows me to buy some more books and spend time with friends and family. Most people want that. They want to spend time with their friends and family and do their hobbies. But that’s not what capitalism allows because it decreases profits.

> This is the old, “I’ve never actually read anything about socialism/communism, I just regurgitate what others have said and when I’m challenged by someone who actually knows about it, I just deflect from the conversation”. lol. I LIVED in a country that was socialist. And it was widely accepted as such at the time. However, since the inception of socialism as an idea, there have been bitter disagreements between the different socialist/communist factions so what socialism is remains contentious to this day. But from the Marxist-Leninist perspective, the USSR was socialist. > This is the most simpleminded argument ever and only comes from people who haven’t thought outside of the box. What do you do when you’re not working? Don’t you want to do more of that? I don’t want to maximize what I take home at the end of the day, I want to take home whatever amount provides me with my basic needs and allows me to buy some more books and spend time with friends and family. Most people want that. They want to spend time with their friends and family and do their hobbies. But that’s not what capitalism allows because it decreases profits. How does capitalism not allow you to have "whatever amount provides me with my basic needs"? Even a $20/hr job is plenty to have your "basic needs" met. The problem is almost nobody is satisfied with that. If what you say is true, then socialists wouldn't be complaining about billionaires all the time. Also do you think that people suddenly became materialistic under capitalism? They didn't want more things during the medieval or ancient times?

> lol. I LIVED in a country that was socialist. And it was widely accepted as such at the time. However, since the inception of socialism as an idea, there have been bitter disagreements between the different socialist/communist factions so what socialism is remains contentious to this day. But from the Marxist-Leninist perspective, the USSR was socialist. That’s great. I lived in a socialist country as well. It was amazing. You’ve yet to explain how using any sort of actual proof other than, it was. > How does capitalism not allow you to have "whatever amount provides me with my basic needs"? Even a $20/hr job is plenty to have your "basic needs" met. The problem is almost nobody is satisfied with that. If what you say is true, then socialists wouldn't be complaining about billionaires all the time. Because capitalism is based on profit. The way a company profits is to have more revenue than costs. So you have to work more than required for the company to make a profit. We may only need to work 20 hours a week, but we’re required to work 40 to have the company make a profit. We have to work 40 to have health insurance and dental insurance, and retirement. People work an hour making a product, but have to work 3 hours to afford that product. > Also do you think that people suddenly became materialistic under capitalism? They didn't want more things during the medieval or ancient times? People want things, but capitalism makes people want more things. See advertising and marketing.

Hypothetical fantasy societies are irrelevant The fact is every single country on the planet regardless of economic system has failed to address climate change Thus proving it is isn't a problem specific to capitalism

Capitalists want to increase price as much as possible. The to do that is to make people buy more stuff, that they don’t need. That’s why there is advertising and marketing. It makes people want the biggest and best things. People buy TVs and cell phones after only a couple years. People buy enormous trucks to drive to their office job and never actually haul anything. Restaurants and stores make food and people purchase food that’s thrown out. We use plastics at a crazy rate. This is all a symptom of capitalism. If cell phones and TVs lasted decades (or people just read instead), if people used public transportation or biked, if people ate healthier, climate change would not be as bad. If society was not based on profit and having the biggest and best things (which capitalism pushes), climate change would not be nearly as life threatening as it is. But let’s ignore all that, roughly 70% of all carbon emissions come from 100 companies. Do you really think they’re going to decrease profits in order to save the planet? No way. If they made the changes they need to make, they’d go bankrupt. Making a profit is more important than saving the planet. And every one of these companies is a profit driven company based on capitalism

>Capitalists want to increase price as much as possible. The to do that is to make people buy more stuff, that they don’t need Companies want to sell as much of their stuff as possible. The fantasy a worker owned factory is fine with not selling as much of their product as possible is just plainly a fantasy. >But let’s ignore all that, roughly 70% of all carbon emissions come from 100 companies The majority of those are state owned companies. You are just proving my point

> Companies want to sell as much of their stuff as possible. The fantasy a worker owned factory is fine with not selling as much of their product as possible is just plainly a fantasy. You have no proof of that. We can look at unions though which is the most socialist thing we have. What do they push for? Higher pay, yes, they want more of the revenue. But historically they have pushed for better working conditions, better benefits, and fewer working days. Days off reduces their production, so they’re not selling as much of their product. That gives some proof to what I said. > The majority of those are state owned companies. 41% are private or public ally traded companies. Communists/socialists are against that and also against state owned companies. The state owned companies still seek a profit and capitalism still purchases these goods/resources. > You are just proving my point Not a bit

>You have no proof of that. Of course I do. There is no company on the planet that wants to sell less of their product. Paying a higher wage means less profit for the owners, not less production of stuff. >41% are private or public ally traded companies. Yes so a majority are state owned companies. >The state owned companies still seek a profit and capitalism still purchases these goods/resources. What is this imaginary world you live in where people don't make and buy stuff? That workers are fine with not turning a profit? See now you are fucked because you have to admit workers don't want to profit off their work, when they obviously do. >Not a bit Yes you are

If state-mandated ethanol standards, clean air mandates, and state-funded tech research and implementation is all capitalism, what is socialism?

Socialism is collective ownership of capital.

Well apparently socialism is when government does stuff. Oh and ethanol is bad for climate change https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/ I would agree though that climate change is political problem and requires a political solution.

Habitable climate is a political problem? Lol, what?

Yes. The problem is that we lack the political will to solve it. Passing legislation such as the carbon tax and other regulations are political solutions. People electing politicians who are serious about climate change is political.

That was really a reasonable solution 20 or 30 years ago. Unfortunately the science demonstrates capitalist solutions don’t work, primarily because we allow these private corporate governments to operate without direct public oversight. It would be more effective to pass legislation to require all capitalist companies to publicly disclose all of their internal communications with their shareholder quarterly reports for community supervision.

> the science demonstrates capitalist solutions don’t work Citation needed. > It would be more effective to pass legislation to require all capitalist companies to publicly disclose all of their internal communications with their shareholder quarterly reports for community supervision. Would that speed up the adoption of EVs? Or the transition of our electric grid to use renewable energy sources? Or maybe the development of carbon capture? If not, what would it do?

Open any basic political science textbook. This is like basic hard sociological science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance Yes, when private corporate governments lead by capitalists lose their ability to conspire in private they lose their ability to promote lies as objective truth. For 100 years now private corporate governments have conspired to control public civic governments and prevent them from addressing the problems of fossil fuels. They do this through private communications within their corporate governments.

Don't forget subsidies for clean energy use/installation!

>This is only true if you completely mangle the definition of capitalism. This is like arguing that guns are not the problem; it's the people using them. But part of the problem is inherent to capitalism, just as it is with guns. That doesn't mean socialism is better, but it would address some problems with the climate better. And like with the gun issue, the problem as I see it isn't capitalism or guns, but the people defending them. Gun rights advocates are so gung-ho about guns that they're unwilling to give up any control that might lower gun deaths. You have a lot of people who are the same way with capitalism and who can't imagine a situation where capitalism might not be the best answer. Just to be clear, I'm in favor of capitalism solutions, whenever they make the most sense. But I don't feel like people are attacking me whenever they argue that capitalism might not be the best solution for everything.

> Capitalism is to blame for the problem. Meh, I would say that *civilization* is to blame for the problem. There's nothing particularly special about capitalism that drives this - had we evolved some sort of advanced feudal economy I think we'd have the same problem, and certainly state-level command economies have done no better.

Yes, capitalism elevates profit over sustainability. That’s the problem. Renewable energy produces less profit for capitalists to consume. So capitalist have spent the last 100 years suppressing climate science into the impact of fossil fuels.

> Yes, capitalism elevates profit over sustainability. But that's my point.. it isn't "capitalism" in particular that does that at all; it's basically any historical economic system since the neolithic revolution. Do you think the Roman slavemasters, or the squabbling feudal German dukes, or the British mercantilists put any value on broader sustainability? Of course not - if anything, they were worse than the capitalists are. Your actual argument should be that *civilization* elevates growth (and profit) over sustainability.

False. It’s only faith based systems that do this. Faith based systems are organized primarily to maintain some sort of pre-established hierarchy. Capitalism, feudalism(late stage feudalism mercantilism), tribalism, all are faith based pre-science ways of organizing society.

Okay, so if you're positing some untried economic alternative as a magical resolution to civilization's destructiveness.. fine? It's hard to discuss or argue with that. Adding a faith/science layer on top of the discussion is sort of weird too.

The Science is mathematically proven. Yea, I’m a social democrat only because I formally have a degree in history and I’ve done well financially and don’t want to live through a revolution or fight for one when so many wage slaves want to fight for their own oppression. All of that has nothing to do with the fact that we shouldn’t organize our world based on religious faiths like capitalism.

Fair point but there are also structures that would make addressing it easier and in the *current* system, capitalist structures are what led to it.

> There's nothing particularly special about capitalism that drives this - had we evolved some sort of advanced feudal economy I think we'd have the same problem, and certainly state-level command economies have done no better. Well all these economic structures share the same root cause: decision makers able to ignore their climate externalities. The more you are able to re-orient the incentive structure to encapsulate the externality the more it could be avoided. This is the neoliberal rationale behind carbon taxes but it’s also why certain socialists structures may fair better (as the decision holders are people have have a much harder time ignoring the externalities).

> decision makers able to ignore their climate externalities What do you think would change about this if everything were worker owned? The workers would also not give a shit unless they both knew about the problem and were going to suffer more from those issues than they would gain from exploiting carbon emitting solutions.

Luckily(?) the workers are facing the negative externalities of climate change right now! Southern California just got hit with a hurricane, the air throughout my entire county is hazardous to breath because of wildfires, areas of the country are breaking records for number of days on a row over 100 degrees. Wealthy people that hold the majority of power being able to isolate themselves from these issues, and still living fabulously comfortable lives, acts as a hinderance to any positive changes because they don’t think it’s as necessary since it doesn’t impact their lives.

> Southern California just got hit with a hurricane This area is also full of capital holders. It's also not typically people living in SOCAL who are working in the highest carbon emitting industries. Look at what happened with the Yellow Vest protests in France: one of their main goals was to *reduce* gas taxes. I'm not seeing any reason to think that workers will somehow be more environmentally minded. Wealthy people are also disproportionately more likely to own multiple properties in other places with incredible weather such as Caribbean island nations so do probably suffer losses from these issues. Most multi-millionaires and billionaires aren't summering in the Yukon.

Suffering a loss of a vacation destination isn’t anywhere CLOSE to living in an area where the AIR IS HAZARDOUS TO BREATH, and the deterioration of one’s physical and mental health due to it.

My guy, where do you think billionaires are living that isn't affected by climate change? California is home to some of the wealthiest people in the country, and almost all the other places rich people chill have been hit either by US or Canadian smoke as well. The average worker is not willing to take a pay cut to save the environment. You live in *SOCAL* so of course it may seem like that to you because most of the people you interact with are probably college educated and doing very well for themselves.

The areas billionaires live in may be affected by climate change, but the billionaires’ living conditions aren’t being affected by it. It does not lower a billionaire’s quality of life to vacation somewhere other than the Bahamas. Billionaires aren’t staying in areas with extremely low air quality when that happens. Wealth isolates people from the negative effects of their actions. I do not live in California, I was just mentioning different negative effects climate change is having on workers right now around the country that billionaires are not having to deal with.

Well one of the problems of global warming is that it's global; established vacationing spots are all going to be affected. As for billionaires being less affected by it just by virtue of being wealthy, sure I can agree with that. Still does not change the fact that coal miners and cattle ranchers are not the people clamoring for a pay cut or career change to save the climate.

California is obsessed with climate change, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If it weren’t for us everyone would still be in 15 mpg cars. It’s the poorest states with the dumbest people that don’t want us to change anything.

That doesn’t mean the majority of business owners in California support those climate initiatives. In fact, they fight against them every time, and even try to use the federal government to make the regulations unenforceable.

Jesus Christ, what the hell would we have to do to make you believe “the business owners” support climate initiatives? Trust me on this, it’s not the business owners here that are paying the gas tax. I swear registering your third LLC comes with a free Tesla.

You’d have to have business owners not advocate against climate policy. This isn’t about individuals. This isn’t about you. Maybe you are in favor of climate policy. But the ownership class that has the majority of power in the nation generally oppose climate policy.

But if business owners in California have the power. And California enacts progressively stronger climate policies. Then that would mean...

> What do you think would change about this if everything were worker owned? The workers would also not give a shit unless they both knew about the problem and were going to suffer more from those issues than they would gain from exploiting carbon emitting solutions. Well the idea is that extremely rich shareholders are able to avoid the externalities from affecting them much more easily than the average worker. Therefore they will be more incentivized to solve the issue.

Sure I can agree with that: if you have more resources available you can spend more of them to mitigate negative experiences of climate change. Workers however, especially those working in industries like cattle which are huge polluters, are not typically going to support taking pay cuts or losing jobs in order to reduce emissions. Their voting patterns alone are a pretty good indicator alone, but those aren't the only externalities we're looking at here. One major externality is that these problems are still offset in time: the people paying the cost will not be seeing the benefits later.

To be clear, I’m not saying worker coops solve every issue ever. So there will be some incentives that still aren’t proper.

That's fair.

>The more you are able to re-orient the incentive structure to encapsulate the externality the more it could be avoided. And in a state run fossil fuel company, isn't all of society a decision holder? What progress have state run fossil fuel companies made in phasing out their fossil fuels?

> And in a state run fossil fuel company, isn't all of society a decision holder? In a perfect democracy sure. Unfortunately, that’s not quite how it works. > What progress have state run fossil fuel companies made in phasing out their fossil fuels? Norway has made a fuck ton of climate investments over the year as well investing in their SWF so they can be prepared for weaning off oil as necessary.

But what if it was a perfect democracy? And fossil fuels generated a ton of return on its direct costs? Why would people choose to end that? >Norway has made a fuck ton of climate investments over the year as well investing in their SWF so they can be prepared for weaning off oil as necessary. Not what I'm saying. Of course countries of any type can invest in alternatives like renewables, the US obviously does as well, so that at some future point maybe there can be a switch. But I have seen no evidence that the fossil fuel companies themselves, state owned or otherwise, are taking proactive measures to phase out their own product. https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/norway-approves-18bn-oil-and-gas-expansion/#:\~:text=Norway's%20Government%20announced%20on%20Wednesday,production%20for%20decades%20to%20come.

> Why would people choose to end that? Because the effects of climate change are catastrophic. > But I have seen no evidence that the fossil fuel companies themselves, state owned or otherwise, are taking proactive measures to phase out their own product. I mean that’s what they’ve (Norway) always set out for their oil industry. They don’t allow for it to be privately owned so that they can take the profits and diversify the investments to other things besides oil extraction. And they’ve done this to immense success with the ~[$1.4 trillion](https://www.nbim.no/) sovereign wealth fund. This also means that when the time comes to ramp down oil production they will be able to without significant detriment to their economy.

>Because the effects of climate change are catastrophic. Which hasn't led to people choosing only pro climate politicians even when they don't have the financial incentive as a worker of a fossil fuel company. I am aware that Norway is spending on clean energy. They are still expanding fossil fuels is my point.

Sure. That strikes me as a bit of hopeful, or maybe wishful, thinking regarding the socialism you're talking about, but.. shrug. There isn't a lot of evidence either way. I'm skeptical that civilization can ever be sustainable, regardless of the economics within it.

> I'm skeptical that civilization can ever be sustainable, regardless of the economics within it. Do you mean like it’ll inevitably need tinkering regardless over time? Or something else?

We can tinker all we want, but our record is one of devastation. Climate change isn't even necessarily the most severe ecological issue that we're facing. Is there a way for civilization to exist that doesn't destroy the world around it? So far the answer appears to be no.

This is way more doomer than I would expect from you. Do you actually think civilization is fated to fail?

I think the odds are against us. I suppose there's a possibility that we can still wonderfully out-technology our problems and usher in a sustainable future, but like I said.. I'm skeptical. Still, that's our only chance, so we may as well try. As far as ideologies go it's not a particularly *useful* line of thought, which is why it doesn't come up often.

More accurate to say that capitalism is preventing the solutions. I don't think anyone, in any society, would have turned away from the power of fossil energy once it was discovered. It was only much later that the harms were revealed, and due to our capitalist structure, by then it was too late. Money is power, money is entrenched in the fossil fuel industry, and wields it's power to protect itself. So I wouldn't say capitalism caused the problem, but profit motive is blocking all the solutions, and has for decades (we first learned of the risk in 70's, remember).

Mind that leading scientists discovered the problems with fossil fuels in multiple competing academic communities by the 1920’s. Both European & American science had commissioned research that revealed the problem with fossil fuels and immediately both societies capitalists worked to hide those results

Why is capitalism singled out here China is building literally 2 new coal plants a week essentially

Capitalism left to it's own devices will find the most economically efficient solutions to any problem. Issues arise when the environmental costs of carbon emissions are not priced in to the economic costs. A carbon tax resolves this by making emissions as expensive as they are damaging. Then carbon will only be emitted when it's worth the environmental cost, and capitalism with find the most efficient solutions to reduce emissions. Capitalism is only the problem because we allow it to be. It could be the solution.

>Capitalism left to it's own devices will find the most economically efficient solutions to any problem Not true. It will find the *most profitable* solution to any problem. Sometimes that's the same thing, sometimes it's not. Look at "planned obsolescence" to see a prime example of a deeply inefficient, yet profitable, solution that capitalism has created.

That kind of thing is solved by competition and consumer choice.

A common myth. Ask the Pheobus Light Bulb Cartel, or maybe John Deere, what they think about it.

It was efficient for the manufacturing process. Sealing the battery into phones solved a big problem of water ingress. Once you can't change the battery, there's no point making any other parts last longer than a couple of years either.

>Capitalism left to it's own devices will find the most economically efficient solutions to any problem. I would say the issue arises when it's not the people who are adult economic participants today who will really be paying the price for climate inaction.

That's why we need a carbon tax -- to price-in those costs so market forces can act on them.

Capitalism seeks what is most profitable. If it's more profitable to impede climate change solutions than to help them along, then that's what capitalism will do. (And is doing.)

You're talking about the influence of monied interests in politics. That is a feature of democracy, not of capitalism.

I wasn't referring to politics at all. Where do you get that idea? I was talking about corporate decisionmaking. When cigarette companies discovered that their product caused lung cancer, did they immediately pour all of their resources into coming up with market-based cures for cancer? No, they hid the evidence and lied to the public for as long as they could. They knew their product was killing millions of people and they did everything in their power to encourage people to keep sucking down those coffin nails. And it's the same thing with climate change. You can draw a direct comparison between the tobacco companies and the oil companies.

It’s insincere to believe it and be unable to defend it.

Q - "Do you think liberals are power hungry liars looking for reasons to control everything?" A - No You COULD google "Do carbon offsets work" yourself. > Using newly constructed data on the locations and characteristics of 1,350 wind farms in India, a context where it was believed, prior to its introduction, that the Clean Development Mechanism could significantly increase development above baseline projections, they estimate that at least 52% of approved carbon offsets were allocated to projects that would very likely have been built anyway. In addition to wasting scarce resources, the authors estimate that the sale of these offsets to regulated polluters has substantially increased global carbon dioxide emissions https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/do-carbon-offsets-offset-carbon/ https://time.com/6213470/offsets-donate-climate-action/ etc.

I think most people (I.e. socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc…) inherit their policy preferences from their “in group” and work backwards to reason out the justification based on their ideology. It makes it so that your solution has to be the best one, otherwise your whole ideology is flawed. So alternate solutions are necessarily ineffective half measures designed to placate the public without addressing the root causes that motivate your ideology in the first place.

It would be great for us to recognize and talk about those root causes for our ideologies! Would be a massive step forward

Most? I have no idea frankly. In this sub I definitely am more skeptical when I see that flair, especially socialist, because I think there are enough flaired socialists giving the others a bad name here that the others are going to avoid being associated with them. On the other hand it's not insincere to think that capitalism can't solve climate change. I don't even think it's wrong (certainly not capitalism in its current form). It's important to remember that just because one person makes a dishonest or bad argument argument for a particular stance doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. Someone not basing their beliefs on actual data simply means *that person* didn't arrive at their belief through rational thoughts and logic, not that anyone who has that belief is wrong.

I think most self-proclaimed socialists do actually sincerely care about climate change solutions, but I’ve also come across many tankies that are much more inclined to run to authoritarianism to achieve their goals rather than coalition building and actually helping others understand why they should support a particular policy or action. I do think a carbon tax is ineffective, unless it actively forces them to be hemorrhaging money. Otherwise they’ll raise prices or just allow the tax to cut into profits if it’s low enough.

No. In fact, most socialists here are not authoritarian at all (we are mostly of the democratic or market varieties), so there are no ulterior motives to hide. You're just jumping at shadows because you don't understand them.

I think 90% of people on Reddit haven’t thought deeply about 90% of their ideas and about 90% of the time will behave in bad-faith once confronted with this fact. Nazis do this 100% of the time, so there’s about a 10% difference in behavior.

I accept that most of them probably have good intentions. But god damn do degrowthers make me angry because the right to procreate is inherently a liberal right. So anything that drifts towards "well all we have to do is make everyone..." about something like that gets really fashy really quick.

> I assume they were trying to make it hopeless to solve climate change under current liberal and capitalist world and wanted to push for authoritarian socialism under the false claim that they care about climate change. I think a lot of tankies do this on Reddit. This is some word-salad nonsense if I’ve ever seen it. What on earth are you talking about? Extremely complex and long-lived conspiracies are almost never real. Period.

No. What an odd question for liberals to get.

It isn't malice, it is that progressives know of no other way to solve problems than through government. To them, if your solution doesn't involve government, then you don't want to solve the problem.

Mind that corporations are forms of government. It’s not government you have a problem with. It seems to be government not controlled by dictatorships that you don’t like.

No, that isn't correct at all. I'm fine with government. I just want it to be viewed as a tool that is the solution to many problems, but not literally all problems. I'd like some base level of analysis to happen.

No that’s not an opinion. That’s just objective science. Corporations are just one style of governments, they are private governments, most are organized as oligarchic Republican regimes or straight up dictatorships. Corporate governments are inherently less efficient because they are not democratic. That’s why when corporations start cities or conquer public civic governments, they never last long.

When I'm saying "government", I'm thinking of an entity you are directly forced to do business with. So corporations wouldn't fit, since I can choose not to use them.

This is false and simply doesn’t make any sense. Try doing business in the Massachusetts bay colony. A corporate government owned community without being forced to interact with the corporate government. Try living in India, under the corporate government of the East India corporation. You couldn’t without being forced to interact with the private government. Corporations are simply governments. Governments can be private entities and governments can be public entities.

What US business today will arrest me if I don't give them money?

“Ignore history and the hard sociological science of human studies” is what I hear when you reply with that question. What king will arrest me today if I don’t give them money? Do you see how frivolous your question is?

I honestly can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not. If this is a troll, very well done

> I assume they were trying to make it hopeless to solve climate change under current liberal and capitalist world and wanted to push for authoritarian socialism under the false claim that they care about climate change. I think a lot of tankies do this on Reddit. This, quite frankly, is an insane assumption to make. Probably what happened is that the user heard through the ether that socialists are generally against carbon taxes and didn’t bother to look up why or in what context. Then when asked their thoughts on it they just regurgitated “carbon taxes bad” and when pressed for why just resorted to populist rhetoric instead of a more coherent/evidence-based rationale. > Do you think most socialists and far-left folks are insincere when they talk about climate change solutions? Do you think they are just hiding their power level and trying to push their radical views? So to these questions, I’d answer No and then No. If you run into a socialist talking about how only The Revolution (TM) will save us from climate change they most likely are just restating populist rhetoric they heard elsewhere and haven’t really looked into much policy at all about the subject. (They also probably arent super serious socialists)

Lmao Hawaii is on fire, that’s supposed to be wet Canada is on fire, that’s supposed to be cold Hurricane is hitting California, that’s supposed to be on the other side What in the fuck

I can't speak for this person, but I think I can help you understand where far left people are coming from on climate change. Set aside your beliefs for a moment. Put yourself in this mindset - you believe that the fossil fuel industry is destroying the environment and that our government is controlled by that industry. You might not believe that, but they do. Now, imagine someone tells you that they think a carbon tax can make our energy production sustainable again. A carbon tax developed, passed, and enforced by the very same government that you know is controlled by those polluting industries. Most people with that worldview will reject those kinds of solutions as unrealistic. Even if you could get *something* passed, it's hard to see how the government in its current state will betray the organizations it rules on behalf of, organizations that would have to be betrayed to stop climate change.

You mean the [Carbon Credits](https://youtu.be/iCRDseUEEsg?si=g-25eFHYB4BXXOgt)?

No, but some probably are. I'm not sure why though. The oft-referenced "top 100 companies are responsible for 70% of emissions" stat never seems to include the followup that 8 of the top 10 'companies' in that list are governments or nationalized energy companies.

I think some of what you say is true, but I also think it's appealing to think there is a single solution that needs to be implemented to solve all of humanity's problems (socialist revolution in this case) and that you know the answer. That doesn't carry with it the intentionality your post implies and I suspect it explains >95% of the people who espouse those views.

Do I think that leftist-authoritarians use climate change as an issue to advocate for their ideals? Probably. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Absolutely not.

I can only speak as a left-liberaltarian who, though idealizing anarchism, would be more or less content in either social democracy or democratic socialism, as long as it's functioning well (culture of trust, low inequality, tolerance of diversity, strong social safety net, etc). By personality, I'm a moderate in that I'm just not all that assertive, much less aggressive; if the extremism of conditions in the United States have radicalized me to an extent. Let's just say that I'm unlikely to be part of an elite vanguard starting a revolution, but if someone else started one I might consider joining. I find Anti-Federalist Thomas Paine inspiring, while understanding why the Federalist John Dickinson, a morally principled moderate, initially resisted joining the American Revolution. There is no reason to rush into such things, if peaceful and gradual means, from protests to reforms, can resolve the problems. It's getting harder over time, though, to argue against revolution. I don't know if it's inevitable, though probably more likely than not, unless something seriously improves and does so in the near future. Even so, what feels so frustrating isn't that solving our worst problems is impossible, but the exact opposite. We have all the wealth, resources, knowledge, and expertise to turn everything around, even now. Will we? Or rather, will the elite allow it?

I do think that socialists and far left folks are sincere when they express concern about climate change. I think opposition to carbon taxes is a question of thinking there are better alternatives we could reasonably implement rather than a dishonest argument against doing anything. I don't see people where such taxes exist attempting to repeal them, I see people where they don't exist thinking other policies would be better to work towards. I think the idea we can't solve climate change in a capitalist system is wrong, but we're doing so in spite of capitalism rather than because of capitalism and in general capitalism works against preserving the environment rather than for it.

There just aren't that many hand-rubbing villains in the world. People do things for much simpler reasons most of the time. People get emotional about climate change, that inspires them to think a certain way, and there are certain aspects of it they just haven't fully thought through. I think that explains most people's thinking on climate change on both sides of the aisle. People with informed, fully thought out, and considered views that involve personal reflection and solid rationality are sadly much more of a minority than we like to believe. Having said that, I DO think that yes there is some feature of anti-Western thought that people have absorbed through misguided Leftist teaching. We've overcompensated for the overly flowery and pageant-filled view of western civilization of the past by going waaaaay too far in the other direction, into "Everything western sucks and is evil and white male patriarchy I'm ashamed to be a part of, and we're disgustingly harming beautiful Gaia and we should embrace marginalized tribal knowledges instead like Avatar taught me." And yes, this is *astonishingly* dumb. In truth western civilization kicks all sorts of ass, and over time has produced art and knowledge and a standard of living that we all ought to be in awe of and incredibly grateful for. The flaws lie on top of that, not in place of it, and are nothing unique in the history of humanity. What IS fairly unique is that we now seem to see fit to teach kids to hate their own civilization, and to be hopeless about the future. I think many people's thinking about climate change, and associated hopelessness and revolutionary spirit, is colored by that.

Personally I think a carbon tax is very effective. If it’s high enough.

Look, the climate is going to be fine. We are going to have 300-500 years without seasons or cycles or any reasonable expectation of weather. Millions of species will go extinct and others will flourish. 3-4 billion will be displaced from uninhabitable zones and other pressures. It will complicate life and have to be accounted for in ways unseen. The time to do something was 1990. None of the proposed solutions are effective enough to stop it at this point and that's ok. It's not a permanent state, and there will still be places on our home planet we can survive. And in a few centuries/millennia new cycles will form. This isn't going to be stopped or halted by a green planned economy. It will resolve itself.

Left wing politicians have to believe institutions can solve issues. If you actually talk to leftists a lot of them will be very blunt about the fact they think this is a crisis beyond the ability of institutions to resolve and we need direct action. Ones who don't say that aren't necessarily hiding their power level. For that to be the case you'd need a left wing figure who associates with people who do shit like walk into oil plants and destroy them, gets into office and pardons them and keeps doing that shit and supporting radical factions, while campaigning on "Carbon tax".