though also I imagine we'd have to be careful about how much of the sun's excess output we're collecting, so as not to begin messing with the energy life on earth has come to depend on from it, to say nothing of how other planets, if they have some form of life, may need it.
Ecosystems are fun! Solar System Ecosystems even moreso!
though also I imagine we'd have to be careful about how much of the sun's excess output we're collecting, so as not to begin messing with the energy life on earth has come to depend on from it, to say nothing of how other planets, if they have some form of life, may need it.
Ecosystems are fun! Solar System Ecosystems even moreso!
Eh most of it just shoots off into the vacuum without intersecting anything. The Earth and the other solar bodies capture a minuscule amount of Solar output.
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!".
though also I imagine we'd have to be careful about how much of the sun's excess output we're collecting, so as not to begin messing with the energy life on earth has come to depend on from it, to say nothing of how other planets, if they have some form of life, may need it.
Ecosystems are fun! Solar System Ecosystems even moreso!
Eh most of it just shoots off into the vacuum without intersecting anything. The Earth and the other solar bodies capture a minuscule amount of Solar output.
though also I imagine we'd have to be careful about how much of the sun's excess output we're collecting, so as not to begin messing with the energy life on earth has come to depend on from it, to say nothing of how other planets, if they have some form of life, may need it.
Ecosystems are fun! Solar System Ecosystems even moreso!
Eh most of it just shoots off into the vacuum without intersecting anything. The Earth and the other solar bodies capture a minuscule amount of Solar output.
I’m probably think way too far advanced
Like
Megastructure level harnessing array advanced
The real dyson sphere proposal was a system of solar capture satellites orbiting the sun. Building a single structure isn't really feasible, you start with a few satellites and use the energy provided to ramp up production of more and more.
}
"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!".
The idea of a sunshade at L1 (Lagrangian point between the earth and the sun) has actually been discussed extensively
Would that be more or less expensive and/or easier than just fixing stuff here on terra firma?
More expensive and more difficult, but you and I would personally be footing the bill. If we fix things here, the head of Exxon Mobile has to pay instead.
So obviously the giant space mirror is the best option.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited May 2019
Less expensive and less permanent. It's little more than a temporary stopgap granting a few decades.
Enc on
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
John Oliver's latest show. For all that it was dismissed, people are still talking about The Green New Deal, and support for trying to do something about the climate is higher than ever.
The idea of a sunshade at L1 (Lagrangian point between the earth and the sun) has actually been discussed extensively
Would that be more or less expensive and/or easier than just fixing stuff here on terra firma?
More expensive and more difficult, but you and I would personally be footing the bill. If we fix things here, the head of Exxon Mobile has to pay instead.
So obviously the giant space mirror is the best option.
The head of exxon mobile can just pass it off to their customers so I never understood this line of reasoning.
Or they can pivot to better technologies and spend money on research to help improve their business. Maybe Exxon starts making high efficiency solar panels or makes money by recycling carbon in the air into a new fuel type, no reason they couldn't.
They just would rather not and are more willing to spend money on easy solutions like "pay off politicians".
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
(and maybe that makes it easier to sell to voters?)
2) Whereas lowering emissions is a problem requiring the cooperation of numerous countries and factions, a few sufficiently wealthy and motivated countries could, hypothetically, deploy a sunshade by themselves
The problem, as @Enc mentioned, is that it's only a temporary solution, and we'd need to lower emissions anyway so maybe we'd be better off just doing it now?
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Wouldn't a sunshade have the problem that while it would cut back on the amount of sunlight and thus the heat hitting earth, that then "oh fuck, it turns out a shitton of the ecosystem developed with a certain amount of sunlight hitting the planet for the past, you know, ever?"
Might break down Inslee's proposal tomorrow now that I have some free time and am not working on a project for a professor assessing the distributional effects of CAFE standards.
Gotta keep putting this enviro econ expertise to work somehow over the summer.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't a sunshade have the problem that while it would cut back on the amount of sunlight and thus the heat hitting earth, that then "oh fuck, it turns out a shitton of the ecosystem developed with a certain amount of sunlight hitting the planet for the past, you know, ever?"
Plants absorb only a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. I think the idea of a planetary sunshade would be to block the wavelengths that are contributing most to climate change (IR) while allowing most visible light (including what plants crave) through.
Wouldn't a sunshade have the problem that while it would cut back on the amount of sunlight and thus the heat hitting earth, that then "oh fuck, it turns out a shitton of the ecosystem developed with a certain amount of sunlight hitting the planet for the past, you know, ever?"
Plants absorb only a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. I think the idea of a planetary sunshade would be to block the wavelengths that are contributing most to climate change (IR) while allowing most visible light (including what plants crave) through.
Brawndo?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Wouldn't a sunshade have the problem that while it would cut back on the amount of sunlight and thus the heat hitting earth, that then "oh fuck, it turns out a shitton of the ecosystem developed with a certain amount of sunlight hitting the planet for the past, you know, ever?"
Plants absorb only a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. I think the idea of a planetary sunshade would be to block the wavelengths that are contributing most to climate change (IR) while allowing most visible light (including what plants crave) through.
Brawndo?
Electrolights
+14
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't a sunshade have the problem that while it would cut back on the amount of sunlight and thus the heat hitting earth, that then "oh fuck, it turns out a shitton of the ecosystem developed with a certain amount of sunlight hitting the planet for the past, you know, ever?"
Plants absorb only a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. I think the idea of a planetary sunshade would be to block the wavelengths that are contributing most to climate change (IR) while allowing most visible light (including what plants crave) through.
Brawndo?
Electrolights
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I apologize if this is too off topic, but I wonder if it's possible to address climate change in a capitalistic society. The drive for profit at all costs and quarterly mentality seems to jar impossibly with the kind of long term thinking required in order to address climate change in capitalistic societies. And the negative impacts of capitalism have also impacted our politics to the point that it feels like we can't depend on the governments to solve this issue.
Capitalism is a huge range of things, not only an unregulated invisible money hand caveat emptor hellscape. Government can and does manipulate a capitalist market by manipulating taxes, incentivising or disincentivising behaviors with tax benefits of penalties, by regulating what can happen in it, or by outright ending certain behaviors.
Capitalism is a problem, but government is the solution. In the US we have conflated capitalism with out form of government, and thus have abdicated much of our power that we could have.
I mean the way we practice “capitalism” has us locked in a race to create technology to get us off the planet before we destroy it and we’re losing badly
I apologize if this is too off topic, but I wonder if it's possible to address climate change in a capitalistic society. The drive for profit at all costs and quarterly mentality seems to jar impossibly with the kind of long term thinking required in order to address climate change in capitalistic societies. And the negative impacts of capitalism have also impacted our politics to the point that it feels like we can't depend on the governments to solve this issue.
It's not just capitalism.
But yes, capitalism is based on selfishness, and selfishness cannot solve collective action problems like climate change.
Capitalism is a problem insomuch that the detrimental effects of climate change are external to market prices and so the True Cost of fossil fuels, commuting, suburbs/exurbs, and etc. are not actually accounted for when consumers make decisions.
There's been a plenty of theory that markets can (and empirical evidence showing they often do when the right mechanisms are in place) solve issues like climate change, but only under circumstances that require government action to implement.
I would like to preface the following by saying I'm not in any way arguing against good, well-considered government intervention on this matter (and many others), but:
I feel like in the case of the US, government intervention may so far have actually made climate change worse. Our policies have heavily subsidized sprawl, single family detached homebuilding, and fossil fuels. And unfortunately it hasn't just been the GOP pushing these mistakes, Democrats have had a hand in it too, albeit to a lesser extent. If the market had to pay the true price of any of those things, each would be more expensive, although still probably not to the necessary degree.
But I'm not arguing for having an unregulated free market in any of those categories, to be clear. Rather, many of our policies need to do a complete 180 and subsidize the opposite things. Public transportation where before we've subsidized roads and highways; apartments and condos rather than single family houses; renewable energy development and construction rather than fossil fuel companies.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Does capitalism have to be short-sighted? Honest question. Currently ours is, and that's really the main problem with capitalism and climate change. Like, there's absolutely no question where the long-term financial gains are and what the absolute largest and most certain long-term financial risk is.... but because it doesn't affect the next quarter or year, no one cares.
I don't see how capitalism would not end up shortsighted.
There's too much to be gained from ignoring long term effects so someone always will, and then the race to the bottom beggins.
Ofcourse that can be fixed with strong regulations that are actually enforced, and with consequences that actually hurt the perpetrators.
But what kind of punishment can deter someone from taking a small risk of punishment when they are all but guaranteed more wealth than most people can even dream of.
And, remember, the people making decisions 30 years ago, and even now, are unlikely to live long enough to face the long term consequences, so short sightedness works for them.
Every system will have people that will try to subvert it for personal gain. I’m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying people are assholes.
Well, yes, but capitalism as it exists now is a system that inherently favours gains now over sustainability, because you can just take the gains, and dump the eventual losses on others.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Every system will have people that will try to subvert it for personal gain. I’m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying people are assholes.
Well, yes, but capitalism as it exists now is a system that inherently favours gains now over sustainability, because you can just take the gains, and dump the eventual losses on others.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Depends also on what you mean by sustainability. Solow's definition is that sustainability is leaving the world the capacity to be as well off if not better capacity for future generations, specifically looking at the global capital stock and the substitutability of different types of capital (i.e. substituting natural capital for physical capital, etc.)
A lot of the problem (especially here in America) is that our tax system doesn't properly internalize the costs of pollution. That's why economists heavily favor a carbon tax -- it actually solves the underlying incentive problems that have created our current environment.
Every system will have people that will try to subvert it for personal gain. I’m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying people are assholes.
Well, yes, but capitalism as it exists now is a system that inherently favours gains now over sustainability, because you can just take the gains, and dump the eventual losses on others.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Depends also on what you mean by sustainability. Solow's definition is that sustainability is leaving the world the capacity to be as well off if not better capacity for future generations, specifically looking at the global capital stock and the substitutability of different types of capital (i.e. substituting natural capital for physical capital, etc.)
A lot of the problem (especially here in America) is that our tax system doesn't properly internalize the costs of pollution. That's why economists heavily favor a carbon tax -- it actually solves the underlying incentive problems that have created our current environment.
Sure.
But then you get issues where the system is gamed by subcontractors moving the environmental compliance off-shore and then conveniently not doing the compliance activity because it's cheaper.
So the carbon tax needs to have carbon tariffs as well, and any carbon offsets, earned by reducing emissions or capturing carbon, need to be heavily monitored to ensure that the stated carbon capture benefit actually exists, and isn't just people planting trees to have them chopped down shortly thereafter.
Every system will have people that will try to subvert it for personal gain. I’m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying people are assholes.
Well, yes, but capitalism as it exists now is a system that inherently favours gains now over sustainability, because you can just take the gains, and dump the eventual losses on others.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Depends also on what you mean by sustainability. Solow's definition is that sustainability is leaving the world the capacity to be as well off if not better capacity for future generations, specifically looking at the global capital stock and the substitutability of different types of capital (i.e. substituting natural capital for physical capital, etc.)
A lot of the problem (especially here in America) is that our tax system doesn't properly internalize the costs of pollution. That's why economists heavily favor a carbon tax -- it actually solves the underlying incentive problems that have created our current environment.
Sure.
But then you get issues where the system is gamed by subcontractors moving the environmental compliance off-shore and then conveniently not doing the compliance activity because it's cheaper.
So the carbon tax needs to have carbon tariffs as well, and any carbon offsets, earned by reducing emissions or capturing carbon, need to be heavily monitored to ensure that the stated carbon capture benefit actually exists, and isn't just people planting trees to have them chopped down shortly thereafter.
Yeah collective action problems are really hard. Additionally moving production off-shore to get around environmental compliance depends a lot on whether or not the company can move easily, which is an empirical question.
But I think all those problems are more easily solved than getting every country and society in the world to get rid of private property rights (which also doesn't really solve the problem since one can still have personal property which has its own carbon emissions).
Every system will have people that will try to subvert it for personal gain. I’m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying people are assholes.
Well, yes, but capitalism as it exists now is a system that inherently favours gains now over sustainability, because you can just take the gains, and dump the eventual losses on others.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Depends also on what you mean by sustainability. Solow's definition is that sustainability is leaving the world the capacity to be as well off if not better capacity for future generations, specifically looking at the global capital stock and the substitutability of different types of capital (i.e. substituting natural capital for physical capital, etc.)
A lot of the problem (especially here in America) is that our tax system doesn't properly internalize the costs of pollution. That's why economists heavily favor a carbon tax -- it actually solves the underlying incentive problems that have created our current environment.
Sure.
But then you get issues where the system is gamed by subcontractors moving the environmental compliance off-shore and then conveniently not doing the compliance activity because it's cheaper.
So the carbon tax needs to have carbon tariffs as well, and any carbon offsets, earned by reducing emissions or capturing carbon, need to be heavily monitored to ensure that the stated carbon capture benefit actually exists, and isn't just people planting trees to have them chopped down shortly thereafter.
Yeah collective action problems are really hard. Additionally moving production off-shore to get around environmental compliance depends a lot on whether or not the company can move easily, which is an empirical question.
But I think all those problems are more easily solved than getting every country and society in the world to get rid of private property rights (which also doesn't really solve the problem since one can still have personal property which has its own carbon emissions).
Without going into Mao and gulags and all that, do you REALLY belive that capitalism is not responsable for climate change, and that we can realistically not become extinct under global capitalism?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
I think much of climate change is independent to specifically capitalism. Most of the incentives that have encouraged the pollution that causes climate change should apply to societies where the workers own the means of production. If West Virginia were a workers' paradise, they would probably still not want to give up coal mining.
+13
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I don't think climate change is exclusive to any one particular economic system. The Soviets had no problem building factories and power plants. If anything they were worse off because of a lack of independent regulation.
Problem is that capitalism encouraged hiding the evidence, and even lying, about climate change.
And now fighting against anything that might ever so slightly endanger to profits short term.
Other systems won't stop some people from doing that, but capitalism encourages, and rewards, those in power doing so.
+2
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Problem is that capitalism encouraged hiding the evidence, and even lying, about climate change.
And now fighting against anything that might ever so slightly endanger to profits short term.
Other systems won't stop some people from doing that, but capitalism encourages, and rewards, those in power doing so.
None of that is exclusive to capitalism and other system are just as prone to rewearing dirty industry. Dirty industry is first and foremost cheap. Socialists, for example, are just as likely to want to minimize direct cost to the state. Any economic system is going to have carrots and sticks. It's up to the people controlling these economic systems to decide if they're going with the clean expensive option or the cheap dirty option.
Does economic structure play a large role in a society’s willingness to price in externalities?
Is it also maybe more fair to say it’s capital that are fucking everyone else over, using capital as a substitute for authoritarian rulers/ruling parties where appropriate?
Posts
Ecosystems are fun! Solar System Ecosystems even moreso!
Eh most of it just shoots off into the vacuum without intersecting anything. The Earth and the other solar bodies capture a minuscule amount of Solar output.
"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!".
I’m probably think way too far advanced
Like
Megastructure level harnessing array advanced
The real dyson sphere proposal was a system of solar capture satellites orbiting the sun. Building a single structure isn't really feasible, you start with a few satellites and use the energy provided to ramp up production of more and more.
"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!".
Would that be more or less expensive and/or easier than just fixing stuff here on terra firma?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
More expensive and more difficult, but you and I would personally be footing the bill. If we fix things here, the head of Exxon Mobile has to pay instead.
So obviously the giant space mirror is the best option.
John Oliver's latest show. For all that it was dismissed, people are still talking about The Green New Deal, and support for trying to do something about the climate is higher than ever.
The head of exxon mobile can just pass it off to their customers so I never understood this line of reasoning.
Or they can pivot to better technologies and spend money on research to help improve their business. Maybe Exxon starts making high efficiency solar panels or makes money by recycling carbon in the air into a new fuel type, no reason they couldn't.
They just would rather not and are more willing to spend money on easy solutions like "pay off politicians".
1) It's pretty fucking cool
(and maybe that makes it easier to sell to voters?)
2) Whereas lowering emissions is a problem requiring the cooperation of numerous countries and factions, a few sufficiently wealthy and motivated countries could, hypothetically, deploy a sunshade by themselves
The problem, as @Enc mentioned, is that it's only a temporary solution, and we'd need to lower emissions anyway so maybe we'd be better off just doing it now?
Woosh. Probably need to start donating to Inslee
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Gotta keep putting this enviro econ expertise to work somehow over the summer.
Plants absorb only a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. I think the idea of a planetary sunshade would be to block the wavelengths that are contributing most to climate change (IR) while allowing most visible light (including what plants crave) through.
Brawndo?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Electrolights
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Capitalism is a problem, but government is the solution. In the US we have conflated capitalism with out form of government, and thus have abdicated much of our power that we could have.
It's not just capitalism.
But yes, capitalism is based on selfishness, and selfishness cannot solve collective action problems like climate change.
There's been a plenty of theory that markets can (and empirical evidence showing they often do when the right mechanisms are in place) solve issues like climate change, but only under circumstances that require government action to implement.
I feel like in the case of the US, government intervention may so far have actually made climate change worse. Our policies have heavily subsidized sprawl, single family detached homebuilding, and fossil fuels. And unfortunately it hasn't just been the GOP pushing these mistakes, Democrats have had a hand in it too, albeit to a lesser extent. If the market had to pay the true price of any of those things, each would be more expensive, although still probably not to the necessary degree.
But I'm not arguing for having an unregulated free market in any of those categories, to be clear. Rather, many of our policies need to do a complete 180 and subsidize the opposite things. Public transportation where before we've subsidized roads and highways; apartments and condos rather than single family houses; renewable energy development and construction rather than fossil fuel companies.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There's too much to be gained from ignoring long term effects so someone always will, and then the race to the bottom beggins.
Ofcourse that can be fixed with strong regulations that are actually enforced, and with consequences that actually hurt the perpetrators.
But what kind of punishment can deter someone from taking a small risk of punishment when they are all but guaranteed more wealth than most people can even dream of.
And, remember, the people making decisions 30 years ago, and even now, are unlikely to live long enough to face the long term consequences, so short sightedness works for them.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It has no ideological or practical stops to that sort of thing, instead it is rewarded.
To stop this, we would have to massively rework how corporations work (personal responsibility for owners and executives/management), and introduce such a draconian system of regulation and punishments that most not hard left people would balk at it.
Depends also on what you mean by sustainability. Solow's definition is that sustainability is leaving the world the capacity to be as well off if not better capacity for future generations, specifically looking at the global capital stock and the substitutability of different types of capital (i.e. substituting natural capital for physical capital, etc.)
A lot of the problem (especially here in America) is that our tax system doesn't properly internalize the costs of pollution. That's why economists heavily favor a carbon tax -- it actually solves the underlying incentive problems that have created our current environment.
Sure.
But then you get issues where the system is gamed by subcontractors moving the environmental compliance off-shore and then conveniently not doing the compliance activity because it's cheaper.
So the carbon tax needs to have carbon tariffs as well, and any carbon offsets, earned by reducing emissions or capturing carbon, need to be heavily monitored to ensure that the stated carbon capture benefit actually exists, and isn't just people planting trees to have them chopped down shortly thereafter.
Yeah collective action problems are really hard. Additionally moving production off-shore to get around environmental compliance depends a lot on whether or not the company can move easily, which is an empirical question.
But I think all those problems are more easily solved than getting every country and society in the world to get rid of private property rights (which also doesn't really solve the problem since one can still have personal property which has its own carbon emissions).
Without going into Mao and gulags and all that, do you REALLY belive that capitalism is not responsable for climate change, and that we can realistically not become extinct under global capitalism?
And now fighting against anything that might ever so slightly endanger to profits short term.
Other systems won't stop some people from doing that, but capitalism encourages, and rewards, those in power doing so.
None of that is exclusive to capitalism and other system are just as prone to rewearing dirty industry. Dirty industry is first and foremost cheap. Socialists, for example, are just as likely to want to minimize direct cost to the state. Any economic system is going to have carrots and sticks. It's up to the people controlling these economic systems to decide if they're going with the clean expensive option or the cheap dirty option.
Is it also maybe more fair to say it’s capital that are fucking everyone else over, using capital as a substitute for authoritarian rulers/ruling parties where appropriate?