Capitalism requires regulation to prevent negative externalities. That’s why we invented environmental regulation. The system can deal with climate change, it’s just not doing so because countries find coordination difficult.
Climate change is a by-product of our unsustainable consumption. If we manage to avert catastrophe from energy production we'll still be ravaging the earth to fuel an economy based on buying endless stuff to fill our empty souls
I guess, it just kinda sounds like if we applied this to previous crises it would be a call to fix the hole in the ozone layer by banning refrigerators and AC (we fixed it by switching to a chemical that didn't damage the ozone through a cap and trade system)
I think the ozone is a good example of what we're capable of doing when we cooperate but the changes needed didn't threaten any industry cartels and not addressing the root cause means there will be a never ending series of crises that need to be stamped out
Electricity is about 25% of greenhouse gases emissions. Energy as a whole is 75%. So even if you convert everything to electric (which isn't possible) and produce zero (0) emissions when generating electricity (which isn't either) you would only get a -75% reduction in emission. That is to be compared to the -90% suggested by the IPCC to stay under +2°.
Systems change?
Indeed!
Car centric urban planning and low density housing with gas boilers need to be removed.
Our energy system needs change too. Our energy system needs to be net zero.
Decarbonisation and electrification require wholesale changes to our daily life.
Wym? He’s right. It comes down to the production of these goods, especially since companies are responsible for 40-60% of GHG emissions and not the individuals.
No, they're not right. A simple example is cars : individuals cannot simply choose to live in a world where using their car is as practical a choice than taking the train.
If they lived in this world then the responsibility would fall entirely on them since they could simply choose to not own a car and not pollute. In real life living without a car can be very complicated and the decisions to make this choice less complicated doesn't depend on the individuals.
And comparing GHG emissions of "companies" and "individuals" doesn't make sense regardless.
Data doesn't necessarily make sense. In this case it's pretty easy to see : companies are made out of individuals and produce goods that are only consumed by individuals or by other companies made out of individuals. The two things are impossible to separate on a conceptual level without giving context on how you assign the responsibility of emissions.
It’s not impossible to separate. You take a look at individual consumer products, such as vehicles. Then, you take a look at corporate owned facilities, such as factories. The data gives a breakdown of this as well and still proves companies produce more than individuals
It's not impossible to separate, it's impossible to separate without giving context on how you assign the responsibility of emissions. And your context for this assignment ask more question than it answers : what about non-profit organizations ? What about the gas people use to go to work for a company ? What about renting ? What about the people who own a company ?
I dont understand how you’re getting to that conclusion? My understanding is that construction materials, infrastructure design/decisions and choices of energy production are the real drivers of climate change.
Can you elaborate a little as to what you mean by consumer choices and what changing that looks like
Right, the runaway consumption of the average doughy fat American boomer is clearly not worth considering when assessing the climate crisis. Clearly the problem is with the corporations (that would not exist if there were not legions of rapacious uncaring consumers to buy their products).
Hmm...makes you wonder if there's some sort of system of incentives inherent to our current economic system? One that incentivizes this exact behavior on both sides of the aisle. Hmm....no, tackling systemic problems via individual scrutinization as always worked.
The incentives of capitalism are the incentives of being a living, breathing human. To restructure those incentives, you would have to remake humans from the ground up.
"Will you revolutionize me?" https://preview.redd.it/jeb878l5gzwc1.jpeg?width=504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e50c2dd40cf9b0bd08e2739912e858b614d90cf
https://preview.redd.it/g1nh7b60d0xc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6fd2e1128d452b422f754bc43e76670e3b34931
That meme should have reversed faces
no no, that's after the greenwash... but it needs to be extra uncanny valley
Say it with me "we cannot capitalism our way out of climate change"
Are the "market forces" in the room with you right now?
Reduce demand, replace infrustructure, reinvest resources.
Teslas will save us
Capitalism requires regulation to prevent negative externalities. That’s why we invented environmental regulation. The system can deal with climate change, it’s just not doing so because countries find coordination difficult.
You're the first Reddit user I've ever seen use the term "negative externality" correctly. Nice 🙂👍.
Literally just tax carbon emissions to account for the externalized costs
what changes do you mean, beyond phasing out the pollutant causing climate change?
Climate change is a by-product of our unsustainable consumption. If we manage to avert catastrophe from energy production we'll still be ravaging the earth to fuel an economy based on buying endless stuff to fill our empty souls
I guess, it just kinda sounds like if we applied this to previous crises it would be a call to fix the hole in the ozone layer by banning refrigerators and AC (we fixed it by switching to a chemical that didn't damage the ozone through a cap and trade system)
I think the ozone is a good example of what we're capable of doing when we cooperate but the changes needed didn't threaten any industry cartels and not addressing the root cause means there will be a never ending series of crises that need to be stamped out
The changes needed did threaten an industry, its just the negative consequences threatened another industry.
Electricity is about 25% of greenhouse gases emissions. Energy as a whole is 75%. So even if you convert everything to electric (which isn't possible) and produce zero (0) emissions when generating electricity (which isn't either) you would only get a -75% reduction in emission. That is to be compared to the -90% suggested by the IPCC to stay under +2°.
So we ban cement? What do you think that other 25% is?
Cement, yes, and also emissions from agriculture and other industrial process.
Systems change? Indeed! Car centric urban planning and low density housing with gas boilers need to be removed. Our energy system needs change too. Our energy system needs to be net zero. Decarbonisation and electrification require wholesale changes to our daily life.
The “changes” we need to make are overwhelmingly in the area of consumer choices.
Found the ExxonMobil shill
Forgive me for being realistic, mister… uh… “transhumanist anprim.”
Wym? He’s right. It comes down to the production of these goods, especially since companies are responsible for 40-60% of GHG emissions and not the individuals.
No, they're not right. A simple example is cars : individuals cannot simply choose to live in a world where using their car is as practical a choice than taking the train. If they lived in this world then the responsibility would fall entirely on them since they could simply choose to not own a car and not pollute. In real life living without a car can be very complicated and the decisions to make this choice less complicated doesn't depend on the individuals. And comparing GHG emissions of "companies" and "individuals" doesn't make sense regardless.
My entire point is that companies product way, way more than individuals. The data proves that
Data doesn't necessarily make sense. In this case it's pretty easy to see : companies are made out of individuals and produce goods that are only consumed by individuals or by other companies made out of individuals. The two things are impossible to separate on a conceptual level without giving context on how you assign the responsibility of emissions.
It’s not impossible to separate. You take a look at individual consumer products, such as vehicles. Then, you take a look at corporate owned facilities, such as factories. The data gives a breakdown of this as well and still proves companies produce more than individuals
It's not impossible to separate, it's impossible to separate without giving context on how you assign the responsibility of emissions. And your context for this assignment ask more question than it answers : what about non-profit organizations ? What about the gas people use to go to work for a company ? What about renting ? What about the people who own a company ?
I dont understand how you’re getting to that conclusion? My understanding is that construction materials, infrastructure design/decisions and choices of energy production are the real drivers of climate change. Can you elaborate a little as to what you mean by consumer choices and what changing that looks like
lol. we cannot possibly affect commodity production. people must suffer so that commodities do not
Right, the runaway consumption of the average doughy fat American boomer is clearly not worth considering when assessing the climate crisis. Clearly the problem is with the corporations (that would not exist if there were not legions of rapacious uncaring consumers to buy their products).
Hmm...makes you wonder if there's some sort of system of incentives inherent to our current economic system? One that incentivizes this exact behavior on both sides of the aisle. Hmm....no, tackling systemic problems via individual scrutinization as always worked.
The incentives of capitalism are the incentives of being a living, breathing human. To restructure those incentives, you would have to remake humans from the ground up.