It might work if the billionaire class would act in enlightened self interest, like the millionaire Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Carnegies of the 20s and 30s (arguably, and arguably not), but this latest crop of ultra-rich just seem to think "I got mine, now fuck you, I'm going to live in my luxury missile silo bunker when the apocalypse comes".
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
62 points (93.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
351 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh you idiot resource hoarder: capitalism got us here because it values profit over anything else. It cant get us out of a problem that isnt about profit. It can only create more problems with its greed.
No, this makes perfect sense. It's difficult to understand what he means because he keeps saying "people" should pay. If he means consumers when he says people, that would be perfectly consistent. Corporations pollute like crazy and "people" should be charged for it. That's capitalism, right?
It's Steyer, so he's likely recommending that polluters be the ones who pay.
Billionaire argues that the system that made him rich and caused all of our problems is also the solution to the problems. Right.
Steyer is firmly convinced that climate change can be solved within the confines of capitalism. The solutions of the staunch left he describes as "panic."
He's wrong. Capitalism's core principle is to take more from the system than you put in, to get maximum profit from maximally small expense. Slavery is a prime example of capitalism. Monopolies and robber barons are a prime example of capitalism. Maximizing short-term profits over the long-term future of the planet is a prime example of capitalism.
We are panicked, because most of us don't have thousands of lifetimes worth of money to insulate us from the effects of climate change, and we still see and experience the effects of climate change that Steyer has also seen first hand.
I agree that we need more regulation, but that's because capitalism is the problem. You certainly can't incentivize the changes needed with a carrot of money, because the capitalists' aim is to take the carrot and laugh at you all the way to the bank.
There's no way to avoid the stick of regulations, but if he wants an economic system that is more likely to promote the broader social good, it's going to be socialism at a minimum. Until capitalists can demonstrate how their favorite economic system has any mechanism to self-regulate human greed, pointing only to regulation (which comes from legislators who historically can be easily bought by lobbyists) is just an indictment of that system.
Must be nice to be independently wealthy and delusional, but at least he is willing to fund groups who are trying to make a difference in spite of capitalism.
Yeah, IF only the poor stopped polluting we could save everyone.
He's arguing that if pollution was priced in, the market would optimize to find ways to reduce it. Which is true, except that:
- This regulation is never going to actually be implemented without major loopholes.
- The market will optimize for loopholes instead.
- A large amount of ways to “reduce” pollution only works on paper (e.g. carbon credits)
It's not exactly a novel idea, it makes sense in the theoretical scenario where we would have effective regulation. Which is also precisely the problem to begin with.
Methinks he's never heard of regulatory capture.
Well obviously capitalism would be a great tool for fighting climate change, if not for the fact that 99% of the control over this tool lie in the hands of the people who have absolutely no interest in fighting climate change
It might work together if the real cost would be reflected in every product. Like, if cost of pollution, emission, all consequences of everything at every step in every country would be priced in and equalized. But that's so unlikely to happen that we might as well set the whole thing on fire.
What makes you think setting the whole thing on fire is more likely/feasible than pricing in environmental externalities?
And we are!