From what I've read on carbon taxes, all currently implemented or proposed ones are an order of magnitude or so short from what they need to be to have the economic effect of phasing out fossil fuels.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Ocasio-Cortez has been taking an interesting political approach in trying to frame climate change legislation as a national aspiration akin to the Apollo program.
Ocasio-Cortez has been taking an interesting political approach in trying to frame climate change legislation as a national aspiration akin to the Apollo program.
But we got bored of that as soon as we beat the Russians.
Ocasio-Cortez has been taking an interesting political approach in trying to frame climate change legislation as a national aspiration akin to the Apollo program.
But we got bored of that as soon as we beat the Russians.
Ocasio-Cortez has been taking an interesting political approach in trying to frame climate change legislation as a national aspiration akin to the Apollo program.
But we got bored of that as soon as we beat the Russians.
Yeah but you cant beat the sun
There are literally proposals out now to hang huge sun shields in space or release reflective particles in the atmosphere. War with the sun is definitely on the table.
Ocasio-Cortez has been taking an interesting political approach in trying to frame climate change legislation as a national aspiration akin to the Apollo program.
But we got bored of that as soon as we beat the Russians.
Joking aside "how do we keep climate change efforts going 40 years from now" is not a question for now when we still lack the will to act at all.
Treating the issue as a national aspiration, something to take pride in, seems to me a more fruitful approach than one about duty and sin.
Specially because duty and sin haven't made people more likely to care about race relationships, so why it should work on climate change again?
(Also I think that that pseudo original sins are creepy, but that's me).
EDIT: Is also a counter argument to "We are screwed thanks to China anyways so who cares" and "I'm an embarassed millionare that will totally get to the biodomes of the rich".
Joking aside "how do we keep climate change efforts going 40 years from now" is not a question for now when we still lack the will to act at all.
Treating the issue as a national aspiration, something to take pride in, seems to me a more fruitful approach than one about duty and sin.
Specially because duty and sin haven't made people more likely to care about race relationships, so why it should work on climate change again?
EDIT: Is also a counter argument to "We are screwed thanks to China anyways so who cares" and "I'm an embarassed millionare that will totally get to the biodomes of the rich".
People like to believe in things, they like to have concrete reasons to feel pride in their country. As a nation we're rightfully proud of our space program. We could do the same for environmental efforts.
+1
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
Guys, I wasn't trying to say gas taxes are not regressive at all. Wasn't trying to True Scotsman poor people either. Just saying that as you get farther down in income level, lower percentages of people own cars, so that it's not quite as regressive as say, sales tax.
I do firmly believe increasing gax taxes is a good idea overall. Demand for driving is more elastic than people seem to think it is, even in car-dependent North America, let alone in a place like France with vastly superior public transport. We see this every time gas prices go up. People drive less, car sales fall, and so on. We also see numerous other examples which confirm it, not only based on money, but also based on the time-cost of driving: When you build a wide new superhighway, lots more people start driving to fill it up to capacity again. Induced demand--which works in reverse too by making driving more expensive.
But that said, I'm not saying "lower gas taxes and do nothing to help the people it hurts", either. Like I said, it needs to be met with increased public transportation investment, increased government-subsidized urban housing. This kills two birds with one stone because it increases the migration into dense urban centers (really good for reducing emissions) and helps people to not depend on the cars you're now taxing more heavily.
And of course throughout the world generally but especially in the US there should be better overall social support particularly for lower and lower middle class people. But that's a topic for another thread.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The elasticity of driving varies from location to location. If you're in the Boston metro area (or Seattle/NYC/any other established urban center), sure you can get around fine without a car. You may even be better off without one.
You live in Detroit? You need a car. I could run an entire website just posting pictures of the rolling shitpiles tooling around Detroit. People can't afford to insure them or register them. They can't afford brakes or tires. Often the cars have been wrecked, sometimes multiple times, or have gaping holes rusted through the bodywork and frame, but people need to get to work, so as long as the demolition-derby-reject fires up in the morning, they're pumping in gas and driving to work.
You pump up the price of gas, these people don't drive less. They just eat less.
Realistically people are going to need to drive less and operating most cars will get more expensive, but you have to offset that with real and aggressive public transportation expansions. Not just an extra bus line here or there.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
Putting the opposition to climate change legislation down to "white supremacy" is going to yield a lot of surprises once you start trying to change things.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
Nah, it's straight collaboration vs self-interest stuff, not simply white supremacy.
Self-interest is real bad at collective action problems.
I'm personally at the point of equivocating collaboration vs self-interest as good vs evil.
I think the white nationalists have already realized, or will realize soon, that climate change is mostly going to affect the global south at first, and happens to be a way to turn Earth into a white's only planet if they can get the global north to gun down climate refugees instead of helping them.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Gas taxes are regressive anyway. You can't tax [thing] to discourage use of [thing] when a substantial number of people* are dependent on [thing] to live and have no viable alternatives.
*consumers, that is, not producers
Yeah, but [thing] is going to cause loss of life, mass crop failures, and destruction along every coastline. I'm not sure the nature of the way we discourage it's use can really fit with modern economic policy terminology.
"[Thing] is going to kill people elsewhere, so let's preemptively kill* our own people to mitigate that." Besides being morally dubious, that's a hard sell.
*No, I'm not being hyperbolic. People might not immediately drop dead because gas prices went up, but the health and lifespan consequences of poverty show up very clearly on the population level.
Gas taxes are regressive anyway. You can't tax [thing] to discourage use of [thing] when a substantial number of people* are dependent on [thing] to live and have no viable alternatives.
*consumers, that is, not producers
Yeah, but [thing] is going to cause loss of life, mass crop failures, and destruction along every coastline. I'm not sure the nature of the way we discourage it's use can really fit with modern economic policy terminology.
"[Thing] is going to kill people elsewhere, so let's preemptively kill* our own people to mitigate that." Besides being morally dubious, that's a hard sell.
*No, I'm not being hyperbolic. People might not immediately drop dead because gas prices went up, but the health and lifespan consequences of poverty show up very clearly on the population level.
This is a silly position to take. If raising gas taxes at all will literally kill people then your position must at least be that the price of gas must be subsidized and capped, not market driven
Gas taxes are regressive anyway. You can't tax [thing] to discourage use of [thing] when a substantial number of people* are dependent on [thing] to live and have no viable alternatives.
*consumers, that is, not producers
Yeah, but [thing] is going to cause loss of life, mass crop failures, and destruction along every coastline. I'm not sure the nature of the way we discourage it's use can really fit with modern economic policy terminology.
"[Thing] is going to kill people elsewhere, so let's preemptively kill* our own people to mitigate that." Besides being morally dubious, that's a hard sell.
*No, I'm not being hyperbolic. People might not immediately drop dead because gas prices went up, but the health and lifespan consequences of poverty show up very clearly on the population level.
This is a silly position to take. If raising gas taxes at all will literally kill people then your position must at least be that the price of gas must be subsidized and capped, not market driven
Sounds fine to me, as long as it's combined with efforts to make gasoline and/or cars unnecessary for most people.
*Gestures meaningfully at a portrait of the 26th President*
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
"We made a little progress, so the problem's solved and we don't need any of the solutions anymore. Go us!"
Honestly this sucks but coal is going to die regardless due to fracking. It was not the obama regulations hurting coal it was how easy it is to get natural gas that burns a lot cleaner. Not ideal but I don't see the roll back of rules being a major long term issue simply because coal even with those changes can't compete.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
This is a pretty large range then for something that is price-capped
Compared to most other countries the price that we pay for gas in the US most certainly lower and more stable. And I made a point to say it was a soft cap. Soft as in it can fluctuate a bit but is never going to get into price gouging territory. The US strategic oil reserve guarantees we won't see prices spike up to something truly crazy like $10 a gallon. According to your own graph the price has been soft-capped at $4 a gallon since we started producing the stuff.
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I know we were just talking about the lack of bugs a page or so ago, but I found this gem while searching for another one of my posts. Really prescient, if you ask me.
One more major problem is the potential collapse of insects. Bees and butterflies have been the most noticeable, but like the collapse of the ocean's ecosystems, we land dwellers can be just as rightly fucked.
In the early 1900s, Iowa’s prairies were home to three hundred of species of plants, another 300 species of birds, tens of species of mammals, and uncounted hundreds upon hundreds of insect species. Fast forward to late summer 2012, when the air should have been buzzing with bugs, and you’d find rather few. One survey of an Iowan cornfield turned up exactly six creatures we might call bugs. (Not simply six species – six individual bugs.) Two grasshoppers, an ant, a red mite, and a cobweb spider eating a crane fly. Otherwise, silence.
It reminds me of all the science fiction about the technological singularity completely divorcing humanity from dependence on nature, which has been interpreted in dystopian and utopian ways.
Humans living in glass domes on a dead Earth is either hell or paradise.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It reminds me of all the science fiction about the technological singularity completely divorcing humanity from dependence on nature, which has been interpreted in dystopian and utopian ways.
Humans living in glass domes on a dead Earth is either hell or paradise.
If Logan's Run is to be believed, its both at the same time.
Pesticides may have a lot to do with that as well.
EDIT: From a personal perspective, in Iowa, I used to dread the yearly coming of the June bugs, but I honestly can't say I've seen any in the last couple years. We still get a shitload of boxelders, and there's always a couple of wasp nests to find at a few points every spring, but I haven't seen Asian beetles in a while, June bugs are more or less gone, and there's way less fireflies than there used to be.
Oh, and of course fucking mosquitoes and flies. Couldn't have those fuckers be the first to go, could we.
Cog on
+1
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Who'd have thought that hosing down vast swaths of the world with DDT might have have side effects?
Who'd have thought that hosing down vast swaths of the world with DDT might have have side effects?
The scary part of insect collapse is that insects are basically immune to mass extinction. KT was a blip on their radar, Eocene Thermal Maximum was actually a boon for them.
Insects have only suffered one mass extinction, and that was the Great Dying.
The end of the world as we know it is business as usual for insects. It needs to be the literal end of the world for them to care.
Who'd have thought that hosing down vast swaths of the world with DDT might have have side effects?
The scary part of insect collapse is that insects are basically immune to mass extinction. KT was a blip on their radar, Eocene Thermal Maximum was actually a boon for them.
Insects have only suffered one mass extinction, and that was the Great Dying.
The end of the world as we know it is business as usual for insects. It needs to be the literal end of the world for them to care.
Also there's some horrible irony in the fact that the pests targeted by insecticides are generally the first to develop resistance. So while most insect species are still extremely sensitive to DDT, mosquitoes and bedbugs have been increasingly resistant to it for decades. For an insect to become a significant threat to crops or public health, it needs to reproduce rapidly, which in turn also speeds up its evolution towards coping with whatever methods we use to control them. So we're losing all the species that are useful in some way (to us and/or to the ecosystem), until eventually I guess we'll be left with only insects that make us miserable.
(Here I'm assuming the collapse is due to insecticides, which afaik hasn't been definitively shown to be the case yet.)
President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday that France would shut down 14 of the country's 58 nuclear reactors currently in operation by 2035, of which between four and six will be closed by 2030.
The hope is that wind and solar replaces the nuclear power, but from what we've seen in Germany its way more likely that coal/gas is expanded as a stopgap first.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Posts
The Canadian federal government is doing that.
The Ontario provincial government is doing the reverse.
:sad:
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
But we got bored of that as soon as we beat the Russians.
Yeah but you cant beat the sun
There are literally proposals out now to hang huge sun shields in space or release reflective particles in the atmosphere. War with the sun is definitely on the table.
Treating the issue as a national aspiration, something to take pride in, seems to me a more fruitful approach than one about duty and sin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4
Specially because duty and sin haven't made people more likely to care about race relationships, so why it should work on climate change again?
(Also I think that that pseudo original sins are creepy, but that's me).
EDIT: Is also a counter argument to "We are screwed thanks to China anyways so who cares" and "I'm an embarassed millionare that will totally get to the biodomes of the rich".
People like to believe in things, they like to have concrete reasons to feel pride in their country. As a nation we're rightfully proud of our space program. We could do the same for environmental efforts.
Teddy probably would be a good place to start mining for ideas conflating environmentalism and patriotism.
I think the big problem with U.S. politics is that progress is on hold until the boomers die off, but we don't have that kind of time with climate change.
I do firmly believe increasing gax taxes is a good idea overall. Demand for driving is more elastic than people seem to think it is, even in car-dependent North America, let alone in a place like France with vastly superior public transport. We see this every time gas prices go up. People drive less, car sales fall, and so on. We also see numerous other examples which confirm it, not only based on money, but also based on the time-cost of driving: When you build a wide new superhighway, lots more people start driving to fill it up to capacity again. Induced demand--which works in reverse too by making driving more expensive.
But that said, I'm not saying "lower gas taxes and do nothing to help the people it hurts", either. Like I said, it needs to be met with increased public transportation investment, increased government-subsidized urban housing. This kills two birds with one stone because it increases the migration into dense urban centers (really good for reducing emissions) and helps people to not depend on the cars you're now taxing more heavily.
And of course throughout the world generally but especially in the US there should be better overall social support particularly for lower and lower middle class people. But that's a topic for another thread.
You live in Detroit? You need a car. I could run an entire website just posting pictures of the rolling shitpiles tooling around Detroit. People can't afford to insure them or register them. They can't afford brakes or tires. Often the cars have been wrecked, sometimes multiple times, or have gaping holes rusted through the bodywork and frame, but people need to get to work, so as long as the demolition-derby-reject fires up in the morning, they're pumping in gas and driving to work.
You pump up the price of gas, these people don't drive less. They just eat less.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
The Boomers aren't the problem, white supremacy is the problem. Boomers are actually marginally more liberal than Gen X.
Also, in we're fucked news, EPA is destroying the Obama administration's rules on coal plants.
"We made a little progress, so the problem's solved and we don't need any of the solutions anymore. Go us!"
That's the same "logic" used for killing the VRA.
I am consistently surprised by the things I see Ontario doing.
Not because it's surprising so much as just... from America it looks kind of weird.
Nah, it's straight collaboration vs self-interest stuff, not simply white supremacy.
Self-interest is real bad at collective action problems.
I'm personally at the point of equivocating collaboration vs self-interest as good vs evil.
I think the white nationalists have already realized, or will realize soon, that climate change is mostly going to affect the global south at first, and happens to be a way to turn Earth into a white's only planet if they can get the global north to gun down climate refugees instead of helping them.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
"[Thing] is going to kill people elsewhere, so let's preemptively kill* our own people to mitigate that." Besides being morally dubious, that's a hard sell.
*No, I'm not being hyperbolic. People might not immediately drop dead because gas prices went up, but the health and lifespan consequences of poverty show up very clearly on the population level.
This is a silly position to take. If raising gas taxes at all will literally kill people then your position must at least be that the price of gas must be subsidized and capped, not market driven
Sounds fine to me, as long as it's combined with efforts to make gasoline and/or cars unnecessary for most people.
Honestly this sucks but coal is going to die regardless due to fracking. It was not the obama regulations hurting coal it was how easy it is to get natural gas that burns a lot cleaner. Not ideal but I don't see the roll back of rules being a major long term issue simply because coal even with those changes can't compete.
Compared to most other countries the price that we pay for gas in the US most certainly lower and more stable. And I made a point to say it was a soft cap. Soft as in it can fluctuate a bit but is never going to get into price gouging territory. The US strategic oil reserve guarantees we won't see prices spike up to something truly crazy like $10 a gallon. According to your own graph the price has been soft-capped at $4 a gallon since we started producing the stuff.
Humans living in glass domes on a dead Earth is either hell or paradise.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If Logan's Run is to be believed, its both at the same time.
EDIT: From a personal perspective, in Iowa, I used to dread the yearly coming of the June bugs, but I honestly can't say I've seen any in the last couple years. We still get a shitload of boxelders, and there's always a couple of wasp nests to find at a few points every spring, but I haven't seen Asian beetles in a while, June bugs are more or less gone, and there's way less fireflies than there used to be.
Oh, and of course fucking mosquitoes and flies. Couldn't have those fuckers be the first to go, could we.
Rachel Carson.
The scary part of insect collapse is that insects are basically immune to mass extinction. KT was a blip on their radar, Eocene Thermal Maximum was actually a boon for them.
Insects have only suffered one mass extinction, and that was the Great Dying.
The end of the world as we know it is business as usual for insects. It needs to be the literal end of the world for them to care.
Also there's some horrible irony in the fact that the pests targeted by insecticides are generally the first to develop resistance. So while most insect species are still extremely sensitive to DDT, mosquitoes and bedbugs have been increasingly resistant to it for decades. For an insect to become a significant threat to crops or public health, it needs to reproduce rapidly, which in turn also speeds up its evolution towards coping with whatever methods we use to control them. So we're losing all the species that are useful in some way (to us and/or to the ecosystem), until eventually I guess we'll be left with only insects that make us miserable.
(Here I'm assuming the collapse is due to insecticides, which afaik hasn't been definitively shown to be the case yet.)
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html
The hope is that wind and solar replaces the nuclear power, but from what we've seen in Germany its way more likely that coal/gas is expanded as a stopgap first.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Shutting down nuclear power plants
Yes quite the way to combat climate change ugh