Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

    So... last week I was asked to intern for Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia! So chuffed! They also showed interest in funding a short film and local forum in my region, just opening a discussion on climate change (I live in a region with many deniers or fence-sitters). The end goal is to get enough public support to create political pressure.

    I'd really like to practise discussing global warming and climate action. I would love to have some people play devil's advocate for me.

    So, the main ideas I'd like to discuss with you are:

    - Do you believe that Earth's climate is changing due to human activity? Why or why not?
    - What do you believe is the most effective way to minimize global warming and its impact, if at all possible?
    - Have you noticed any changes in the environment around you already?
    - Are your friends and acquaintenances concerned about global warming?

    I'm not well-versed in dealing with scholarly articles or hard-core science-y stuff. You can expect me to keep everything in plain english. If you could do the same for me too, I'd appreciate that and it would reduce the amount of times I have to ask you what you mean.

    Let's keep it chilled...bad pun?
    Last edited by Azvanna; 16 Jun 2019, 03:08.

    #2

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

      I must have missed this one!

      - Do you believe that Earth's climate is changing due to human activity? Why or why not?
      Yes, completely. The world has changed in so many ways, humanity has not done well with keeping up with the balance part of their advancements

      - What do you believe is the most effective way to minimize global warming and its impact, if at all possible?
      Embrace cleaner energy, have a team dedicated to studying all impacts of them, find ways to embrace non destructive advancement, fine companies and billionaires who don't.


      - Have you noticed any changes in the environment around you already?
      The seasons are completely different from my childhood. Allergies and sinuses are worse, and certain animals and patterns are altered or completely gone.


      - Are your friends and acquaintenances concerned about global warming
      Most of the people in my life are, yes. There are still some who are short sighted and insist on staying uneducated.
      ~Rudyard Kipling, The Cat Who Walks By Himself

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

        Anthropogenic climate change exists definitively. There isn't really a debate to be had there and if anyone tells you there isnt a consensus among climate scientists about that, then they're either lying or misinformed. Humans are influencing global climate on several levels, most principally by producing greenhouse gas emissions faster than carbon sequestering and other processes can remove them. The data is quite clear that this type of rapid global temperature shift, on the order of decades and centuries, is unprecedented in its rapidity throughout history and thus it is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes.

        Point two is that large corporations are a huge problem, especially those with interests in energy and oil production who stand to lose with large scale dismantling of these industries. Identify the entities associated with the greatest levels of pollution and environmental exploitation and work to remove or amend them, but this requires pushing back against the lobbyists of them and their supporters. Also abolish billionaires. That level of wealth is immoral and must come from excessive exploitation of human or natural resources.

        I think the avenue here is through legislation but it must be accomplished by all world powers to be effective. This will probably be near impossible with some countries, like Saudi Arabia, either because they lack the ability for whatever reason, or have strong incentives to continue using these practices. It isnt because normal people arent recycling, although do that, it's because of systemic exploitation and unsustainable use of environmentally destructive practices and agents by a few large entities.

        I live in upstate New York. We're famous for our leaves, they're super cool and pretty. They only started changing about a week and a half ago here. That is weird. When I was a kid, I remember that being more of a late September thing. It's really weird how we go from 40F at night to 80F during the day. This is my local level and that seems way more temperamental than it should be here. We harvested our vegetable garden early because there was going to be frost, the next day it was in the 70s.

        I dont know anyone who isnt at least a little concerned about climate change. It is a regular topic of conversation among my roomates and friends. we are distressed.

        It's my opinion that continual use of fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive processes is an act of harm both to that nation's people, and the global population. As such, egregious examples of such acts should be considered violations of human rights, or even an act of war against the global population. It is the sowing salt of the modern day, a poisoning of our air and water. International respect for the sovereignty of nations makes these agreements impossible to enforce legally, but the people know. People have, are, and will continue to die from the effects of global climate change and environmental exploitation.There will be riots if the nations do not listen and the leaders are responsible for the poisoning of their people and land.
        Circe

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

          Originally posted by Corvus View Post
          There isn't really a debate to be had there and if anyone tells you there isnt a consensus among climate scientists about that, then they're either lying or misinformed. Humans are influencing global climate on several levels, most principally by producing greenhouse gas emissions faster than carbon sequestering and other processes can remove them. The data is quite clear that this type of rapid global temperature shift, on the order of decades and centuries, is unprecedented in its rapidity throughout history and thus it is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes.
          Spot on. The problem with some people is getting them to connect with those facts and turn it into a narrative that plays in their minds. In my town, climate change is a polarised topic. People push back against it with a vehemence I've never seen. It's as though there's a self-protecting psychological thing happening.

          Originally posted by Corvus View Post
          Point two is that large corporations are a huge problem, especially those with interests in energy and oil production who stand to lose with large scale dismantling of these industries. Identify the entities associated with the greatest levels of pollution and environmental exploitation and work to remove or amend them, but this requires pushing back against the lobbyists of them and their supporters.
          This is a particular problem in Australia where there is a revolving door between Public Servants and big business. The example of Cameron Milner is of particular interest as the ALP (Australian Labor Party) is the party most likely to come into power if Australians start voting with climate action in mind.


          Originally posted by Corvus View Post
          I think the avenue here is through legislation but it must be accomplished by all world powers to be effective. This will probably be near impossible with some countries, like Saudi Arabia, either because they lack the ability for whatever reason, or have strong incentives to continue using these practices. It isnt because normal people arent recycling, although do that, it's because of systemic exploitation and unsustainable use of environmentally destructive practices and agents by a few large entities.
          I think you've made a really important point here. It's easy to get side-tracked with other good-for-the-planet projects and forget about the political side of the equation here. Consumer choice (sorry Danni!) plays a role in business development but with an emergency of this scale, it's really infrastructure changes that need to take place.

          Originally posted by Corvus View Post
          This is my local level and that seems way more temperamental than it should be here.
          I've noticed that in my town too. Add in the drought that is pretty much country wide right now...

          I dont know anyone who isnt at least a little concerned about climate change. It is a regular topic of conversation among my roomates and friends. we are distressed.

          It's my opinion that continual use of fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive processes is an act of harm both to that nation's people, and the global population. As such, egregious examples of such acts should be considered violations of human rights, or even an act of war against the global population. It is the sowing salt of the modern day, a poisoning of our air and water. International respect for the sovereignty of nations makes these agreements impossible to enforce legally, but the people know. People have, are, and will continue to die from the effects of global climate change and environmental exploitation.There will be riots if the nations do not listen and the leaders are responsible for the poisoning of their people and land.[/QUOTE]

          Originally posted by faye_cat View Post
          There are still some who are short sighted and insist on staying uneducated.
          How is the mood in the US in regards to climate action? I've heard it's really polarised and maybe a 50/50 split?

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

            You wanted devils advocate. Ill drop you the most common things I hear in my professional capacity on this issue. The denyoing set is past denying, and on to negotiating.

            #1 So what.
            #2. See above, additionally, whjyt should I impoverish myself as a producer knowing that my competitors will not and that no change I make will balance out when the greater portion of the worlds population without access to these products gets them..and uses them?

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

              You asked this while I was busy moving, lol!


              Originally posted by Azvanna View Post
              So... last week I was asked to intern for Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia! So chuffed! They also showed interest in funding a short film and local forum in my region, just opening a discussion on climate change (I live in a region with many deniers or fence-sitters). The end goal is to get enough public support to create political pressure.
              Congrats!!



              I'd really like to practise discussing global warming and climate action. I would love to have some people play devil's advocate for me.
              There are some really good resources for this, if you aren't aware of them already:

              Don Cheadle talks to Katharine Hayhoe, an Evangelical climate scientist, about how she reconciles faith and science and how to speak about climate change wit...


              Concerning the attitude about it and attitudes in the US, this is pretty good info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BvcToPZCLI She's (the same person as in the previous video) especially useful as a speaker to conservatives on the matter from a religious/Christian perspective and can talk about climate change authentically from that perspective.



              But, when it comes to actual skeptic POVs and rebuttals, this site does a good job with the science: https://skepticalscience.com/


              So, the main ideas I'd like to discuss with you are:

              - Do you believe that Earth's climate is changing due to human activity? Why or why not?
              - What do you believe is the most effective way to minimize global warming and its impact, if at all possible?
              - Have you noticed any changes in the environment around you already?
              - Are your friends and acquaintenances concerned about global warming?
              1. Of course I believe something that science overwhelmingly supports. That's like asking if the sky is blue on a sunny day and water is wet when it rains

              2. I'll get back to this one...

              3. I have an entire powerpoint about how climate is disrupting agriculture and food production and what that means for us in the next 50 years, one of which is about the complete shift of growing zones, so yes.

              4. Yeah, because most of my friends are science nerds...





              2. I absolutely believe we can minimize or even reverse global warming. I also believe we can do this with mostly low tech solutions. I believe that we can do this without even having to fully eliminate fossil fuels extraction or even without totally rearranging out economies, etc. I think we should do these things, but I don't think we have to for climate change.


              What we have to do is actually pretty simple and many of the things actually cost less, etc...but some are hard and expensive and require sacrifice

              I'm not going to be able to be able to hit all of them tonight (gotta sleep), but I'll start with my personal favorite, soil.

              1. Prevent erosion.
              2. Enrich soil.
              3. Prevent erosion.

              How? Minimize tilling where possible, develop native plants as crops in the areas where they are traditionally endemic, rotate crops and/or avoid monoculture agriculture, reduce food waste in order to use less land for ag, reduce mat consumption in order to use less land for livestock and less land for ag to feed livestock (both of which reduce water pollution, including nitrates, and pesticide use).

              Tilling farmland increases carbon dioxide emissions, but not tilling may not work for every farm.

              More than one-fifth of global warming emissions come from land use. Sustainable farming can make soil healthier and better able to soak up carbon, while saving energy and boosting food production.

              Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
              sigpic

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                Ill stress again that we, as advocates, need to move away from the low hanging fruit of deniers and on to the more troubling issues for what we hope to see happen in the world, in future.

                To that end, trendy ideas like "less livestock" need to be seriously and critically looked at..because while they may line up with our ideology (and they certainly line up with my business model, lol)...the truth is that the other side has our side dead to rights when they tell us that's nonsense. Less livestock will just starve people, and were not saving the earth for earths sake, but for ours.

                The same is true about the estimated costs of climate change..which, while massive as a raw number projected out to say, 2150..are actually less expensive than the environmental cleanup would be when adjusted for growth and inflation in that same period. That, completely ignoring the very real human misery that current plans to combat climate change would cause. This means that the average first worlder's experience will never line up to climate projections or climate realities. We'll be arguing with people who, even by 2150...still haven't suffered any of the consequences they were told would be unavoidable.

                I know, I know, what about their humanitarian impulses? Their what, I ask?

                Inconvenient truths of an entirely different kind.

                It will always be an uphill battle for anyone reading this convo, on the internet, because developed countries simply aren't going to feel the brunt of climate change regardless of whether we ever do anything about it. That will be felt by poor undeveloped countries with insufficient means to feed themselves, no resource to trade for food.....

                .......and every reason to burn fossil fuels, like we did, to change that situation.
                Last edited by Rhythm; 31 Oct 2019, 15:25.

                Comment


                  #9

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                    Originally posted by Rhythm View Post
                    You wanted devils advocate. Ill drop you the most common things I hear in my professional capacity on this issue. The denyoing set is past denying, and on to negotiating.

                    #1 So what.
                    #2. See above, additionally, whjyt should I impoverish myself as a producer knowing that my competitors will not and that no change I make will balance out when the greater portion of the worlds population without access to these products gets them..and uses them?
                    !!! What is your professional capacity?

                    I know no one who has actually admitted to thinking this way, but I'm sure they're out there. For people in this frame of mind, there is no6 point arguing. It as you say.. no humanitarian impulse there whatsoever. However, what we can do with people like this is legislate. We make using fossil fuels less lucrative. How? A solution might be the carbon fee and dividend as per CCL is pushing for. Tax the use of fossil fuel at the point of entry into the economy then distribute the revenue evenly among each voting citizen. In Australia, that's everyone over 18. Yes, that means the cost of products gets passed on to the consumer but the consumer also gets a dividend at tax time. CCL estimate that low to middle income earners would be better off under this system even if their usage habits don't change. So it encourages businesses to invest in renewables as the consumer demand is there and encourages consumers to buy products with a low carbon footprint.

                    Thalassa, I love all your resources. I have never heard of Katharine Hayhoe. I'm wowed by her!! I wish I were this convincing!

                    Originally posted by Rhythm View Post
                    Ill stress again that we, as advocates, need to move away from the low hanging fruit of deniers and on to the more troubling issues for what we hope to see happen in the world, in future.

                    To that end, trendy ideas like "less livestock" need to be seriously and critically looked at..because while they may line up with our ideology (and they certainly line up with my business model, lol)...the truth is that the other side has our side dead to rights when they tell us that's nonsense. Less livestock will just starve people, and were not saving the earth for earths sake, but for ours.

                    The same is true about the estimated costs of climate change..which, while massive as a raw number projected out to say, 2150..are actually less expensive than the environmental cleanup would be when adjusted for growth and inflation in that same period. That, completely ignoring the very real human misery that current plans to combat climate change would cause. This means that the average first worlder's experience will never line up to climate projections or climate realities. We'll be arguing with people who, even by 2150...still haven't suffered any of the consequences they were told would be unavoidable.

                    I know, I know, what about their humanitarian impulses? Their what, I ask?

                    Inconvenient truths of an entirely different kind.

                    It will always be an uphill battle for anyone reading this convo, on the internet, because developed countries simply aren't going to feel the brunt of climate change regardless of whether we ever do anything about it. That will be felt by poor undeveloped countries with insufficient means to feed themselves, no resource to trade for food.....

                    .......and every reason to burn fossil fuels, like we did, to change that situation.
                    Rhythm you have summed this up so succinctly. Thout shall not add to this word nor take anything away. Amen.

                    I'd really like to see a carbon tax reintroduced. I don't love the idea of paying tax, but I do love the idea of emission reduction. Australia was reducing emissions when we had a Carbon Tax, but it got repealed and then our emissions began to increase again. Subsequently, we lost no less than 3 Prime Ministers who were trying to introduce a price on carbon.

                    What's your opinion on Nuclear Power as an energy source? My electorate's Member of Parliament (Congressman equivalent) is currently researching weather lifting the ban on Nuclear power in Australia is feasible.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                      I'm a researcher and advocate for sustainable development (specifically rural transition in appalachia ). We work with the university extension service and a handful of federal agencies to direct funds and training to investors, business owners, and entrepreneurs looking to go green, and, additionally, I ensure that the recipients of the same are in compliance with the programs from which they benefit. I'm also running a viability assessment on intensive recirculating aquacultural systems as a sustainable alternative to burley tobacco production in rural appalachia. I've previously worked for the EPA, NRCS, and NR&D Council. I have two decades of experience in operations and management, specifically defense contracts, and in the last ten years I've set up CSA's and vertical hydro systems in 4 SE US states. Once upon a time, I served in the US armed forces as a peacekeeper, and have distributed aid and helped to build much needed infrastructure in a half dozen conflict zones worldwide.

                      The people I've been working with for all of this time have heard those punitive arguments, and, clearly, it doesn't address their concerns. It only strengthens them. Moreover, the very moment we decide to use the words "less profitable" we'll have lost every business minded and/or poor ear in a room. I think that it's a mistake to write off "the other side" as though they had no legitimate concerns, or to respond to those legitimate concerns with an authoritarian solution that will not, and cannot, address them. When we speak of legislation as though it can be achieved in a wholly one-sided manner, we're deluding ourselves. That's not how legislation works...and I don't think that any of us really want it to work that way. Similarly, I'm appalled at how easy it is to bait my fellow advocates into regarding these people as mustache twirling villains.

                      The concerns I hear most often are ones surrounding the cost of remediation, and the futility of remediation in the face of a global market that will, if that global market doesn't remain in poverty unto the end of days, account for more pollution than we currently produce. In the absence of a specific plan beyond "legislate against them"...and without any exploration of how it might be that they could interface with this new future we dream of, it's ludicrous to consider their misgivings as unfounded. There will be losers in a green future. They will be real people with families and employees who depend on them for their own families. They don't want to be those losers.

                      In my experience..and I'm from the US, and I work in rural areas - so obviously this may not be yours - it is more useful for us as advocates to understand those concerns and be seen as something other than "the other guys" than it is to understand our ideologies ad copy. Objections like these shouldn't blindside you. I've been there, too. Don't get me wrong. What I learned, was that it helped to have a specific local example of how an operation or entity like the ones we're trying to court made inroads (and money) for when they crop up. That canned response you offered is a non-starter...even if it's true.

                      - - - Updated - - -

                      -takes off devils advocate hat-

                      I think that nuclear power was the energy production system of the future...in 1950. It could have been a great transition, but that ship has sailed. It's not even remotely my area of expertise, but as I understand it, the new gen reactors are really sweet pieces of equipment, but I think we should probably lean into newer developments. Laying aside thorny issues like proliferation, if the choice were solely between burning fossil fuels and nukes, nukes all the way. That opinion of mine is largely limited to developed nation (for a whole host of reasons). I actually don't think that we can get too upset about a country making judicious use of as little fossil fuel as possible in order to rapidly develop. That's what we did, and all of our sustainable tech has, as it;s beating heart, some amount of fossil fuel consumption. Very real concerns over human QOL can, in my mind, trump concerns over the environment over limited spans of time.
                      Last edited by Rhythm; 08 Nov 2019, 08:26.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                        Originally posted by Rhythm View Post
                        The people I've been working with for all of this time have heard those punitive arguments, and, clearly, it doesn't address their concerns. It only strengthens them. Moreover, the very moment we decide to use the words "less profitable" we'll have lost every business minded and/or poor ear in a room. I think that it's a mistake to write off "the other side" as though they had no legitimate concerns, or to respond to those legitimate concerns with an authoritarian solution that will not, and cannot, address them. When we speak of legislation as though it can be achieved in a wholly one-sided manner, we're deluding ourselves. That's not how legislation works...and I don't think that any of us really want it to work that way.
                        I really hope I'm on the right track here. Without really clear objections, I'm not sure what to give you.

                        A Carbon Fee and Dividend will not mean the immediate end of business if that's what the people you are working with are concerned about. There will be a period of time where businesses have the opportunity to tranisition to renewables and the carbon fee will make it more profitable to do so. The point of a carbon fee is not to put people out of business. It is to transition the way business is conducted away from one source of power.

                        Let me lay it out for you.

                        A carbon fee is applied to fossil fuels at the point of entry into the economy, ie at the mine or at the port. That fee steadily rises every year until the final fee is introduced at the five year mark. The revenue gained from that fee is then distributed evenly to every adult citizen at tax time, every year for as long as the fee is in place. According to research, Citizen's Climate Lobby states that middle to low income earners will be better off from the very first year even if they don't change the way they use fossil fuels. So under this plan, ordinary citizens are better off. When ordinary citizens are better off, businesses benefit because people spend more.


                        The concerns I hear most often are ones surrounding the cost of remediation,
                        Remediation from what? I sense we are talking about this subject from vastly different levels of understanding.

                        In the absence of a specific plan beyond "legislate against them"...and without any exploration of how it might be that they could interface with this new future we dream of,
                        The plan is to use the price mechanism to transition businesses and individuals away from using fossil fuels as their source of power.
                        How you interface with this is: use a more affordable source of power when it is made available.

                        it's ludicrous to consider their misgivings as unfounded.
                        No one is saying that misgivings around having to pay more for stuff is unfounded, but it is the point. If money is the bottom line, then money has to be the driver for the change we need to see our way of life continue. Civilisation is at the point of another revolution. It is a revolution based on the experience of what happens when our way of doing business becomes counter-productive. When our businesses are abusing our earth's resources (real things) for the sake of an imagined idea (currency) to the point of an environmental disaster on a global scale (mass extinction of species, food shortages, natural disasters et al), something has to change. Yes, changing the way we do business creates challenges. But with challenges and change comes new opportunities. I'm excited to see where this era of sustainability will lead.

                        What I learned, was that it helped to have a specific local example of how an operation or entity like the ones we're trying to court made inroads (and money) for when they crop up.


                        A carbon fee and dividend is not without precedent. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...emissions.html

                        Businesses benefit when consumers have more money. Under the carbon fee and dividend plan, the businesses most likely to be bearing the brunt of the cost are the really heavy polluters. In Australia, that means companies like AGL that own coal-fired power stations. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...14-p4zf43.html It is from these businesses that ordinary Australians will be receiving most of their Dividend. Yes, these companies may simply increase the cost of power, but that cost is regulated by our government, the Australian Energy Regulator. This means that some of the fee can be passed on to consumers but not all. It is expected that businesses will transition away from fossil fuels and invest in developing renewable energy ready for a receptive market. This is already happening in South Australia https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-au...es-next-79597/ who source 50% of its power through renewable energy. South Australia is the size of France and Germany combined and has a population of around 1.7 million. A transition to renewables can be done profitably if big businesses are elastic enough to adjust.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                          What will they be adjusting into? Will there be more renewable energy available before the taxes are in place? Who's spearheading that, are they well funded, and when do they expect to have increased capacity?

                          - - - Updated - - -

                          Additionally, what reason is there to expect that an increase in consumer activity attributed to a dividend will be funneled towards those businesses that will see higher overhead through regulation? Are people likely to buy more clothes and tvs, or more green left handed widgets?

                          Perhaps even more fundamental, is there a plan to retain producers when those higher costs make offshoring an attractive option, particularly if they can avail themselves of lower labor and lesser regulation...and the dividend, by import?
                          Last edited by Rhythm; 10 Nov 2019, 04:48.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                            Originally posted by Rhythm View Post
                            What will they be adjusting into? Will there be more renewable energy available before the taxes are in place? Who's spearheading that, are they well funded, and when do they expect to have increased capacity?
                            The fee/tax will only be paid once. So businesses and people do not get taxed when they use a refined fossil fuel like petrol for their car or power for their homes. They will be paying a higher price for these goods only because the fee imposed on mining/energy companies will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

                            While there is currently an abundance of renewable energy sources available (solar panels come to mind), it is thought that the big energy companies (like AGL in Australia) will themselves be producing wind and solar farms. This is because:
                            1. there will be more profits in renewables because there won't be a fee imposed on its production and
                            2. There will be a consumer demand for renewable energy because of the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
                            As you say, shareholders of big mining companies are not moustache twirling villains, they are just making sure they're not the losers. When governments add into the pricing of fossil fuels its social cost, then we begin to align economic and ecological benefits.

                            Additionally, what reason is there to expect that an increase in consumer activity attributed to a dividend will be funneled towards those businesses that will see higher overhead through regulation? Are people likely to buy more clothes and tvs, or more green left handed widgets?
                            Which businesses do you think will see higher overheads?

                            Perhaps even more fundamental, is there a plan to retain producers when those higher costs make offshoring an attractive option, particularly if they can avail themselves of lower labor and lesser regulation...and the dividend, by import?
                            Border adjustments can be made. The Executive Summary of Australian Climate Dividend Plan states:
                            'Under the plan, border adjustments for traded goods would mean that Australian indusry would not be put at a competitive disadvantage. Exports to countries without comparible schemes would receive rebates for the taxes paid. Imports from countries without such schemes would be charged fees based on the carbon content of those products.
                            .

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

                              Originally posted by Azvanna View Post
                              The fee/tax will only be paid once. So businesses and people do not get taxed when they use a refined fossil fuel like petrol for their car or power for their homes. They will be paying a higher price for these goods only because the fee imposed on mining/energy companies will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.
                              Meaning that the tax will, in fact, be uniform and not "one time" - or even limited to mining companies or energy producers. This is what I mean by ideological ad copy. It's a form of (sometimes)well meaning doublespeak. I've learned, over the years, to lay out the potential commercial carnage plainly and without apology. This prevents a situation where you set yourself up to be seen as a minimizing apologist. In my opinion, time spent minimizing or occluding these sorts of facts with semantics is better spent addressing those concerns with whatever contingencies are already in place or will be in place to directly address them. This isn't foolproof, as we'll see below, still...it's something to think about. It is a fact that the modern economy is predicate on a specific form of energy/consumption economy. While we might doubt that a business x will become wholly unprofitable on account of tax y..it will still, then, be a fact that at least some businesses x will be a relatively poor use of capital in a new economy of tax y, with respect to some other business z.

                              If this were -not- true, if these changes could -not- change energy/consumption, then what would the point of economic disruption be in the first place? The end goal, either explicitly or implicitly, is to drive ecologically irresponsible business out of business. This must, by necessity be coupled with a specific transition plan for affected industry. Another caveat, that we'll also see at play shortly..is that while we might address these concerns rationally, markets do not operate rationally, in reality, as opposed to theory.
                              While there is currently an abundance of renewable energy sources available (solar panels come to mind), it is thought that the big energy companies (like AGL in Australia) will themselves be producing wind and solar farms. This is because:
                              1. there will be more profits in renewables because there won't be a fee imposed on its production and
                              2. There will be a consumer demand for renewable energy because of the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
                              As you say, shareholders of big mining companies are not moustache twirling villains, they are just making sure they're not the losers. When governments add into the pricing of fossil fuels its social cost, then we begin to align economic and ecological benefits.
                              Is there an abundance of renewables, though? Does renewable production exceed peak consumption? I find that hard to believe (though I deeply wish it were true). If it's not, this is another example of ideological ad copy. In theory there may be an abundance..or there may be an abundance Some Day(tm)as in the sun falls on ground not covered by solar and the wind blows in places without wind...but......Some Day(tm) is not today, and no business can survive long without sufficient power or product.

                              Speaking of Some Day(tm)...some day there may be more profit in renewables, but even on that day, does the increased profit cover the cost of refitting current infrastructure and does the remainder of that calculation make renewables -comparatively- better than non renewables, either at point of production or down the chain of supply? Is the difference enough to coax inconsequentially irrational market actors? I'd say that the difference would have to be significantly better than the return on a low yield federal bond, or else it actually makes sense to continue business as usual and plow the proceeds into financial instruments rather than infrastructure upgrades with marginal (comparative) return. An individual or entity can always buy into the earth later when the results are less ambiguous, saving themselves lost opportunity cost in the interim.

                              This is the dilemma of the free rider. It's at least possible (and I would say certain) that the cost of environmental responsibility will be borne by the few while those who do not invest or who do not take that hit will benefit all the same. From the standpoint of environmentally conscious action this doesn't bother me. It's likely that it doesn't bother you, either. It does and will continue to bother those who bear that cost as overhead, however, and rightly so. OTOH, consumers will not cease to demand a product simply because it has risen in price. A great many products are either necessary no matter the cost, or so greatly desired that the cost is decoration, or even desired precisely because of the cost. No one ever bought a Hummer because it was cheaper or more environmentally conscious than a Bolt, or even a Silverado...and all three products are made by the same company. The Bolt is the cheapest of the three, in fact, and the most environmentally sound, and yet it accounts for a fraction of sales. Clearly, something other than a pure calculation of cost is at play in consumer demand.

                              The owners of the local car lot are not only not mustache twirling villains, they're not "big companies" either. The "us v them" implication may be useful for making a populist appeal, but it's not grounded in reality. Meanwhile, renewables as a sector, which is dominated by big business (mostly chinese) are wholly consumer demand driven and not at all the low cost option. Nor, for that matter..in their current state, could they ever be. Solar panel production (just as one example) leverages abusive labor and environmental policies, in addition to a phenomenal hidden fossil fuel cost in mines and foundries almost exclusively tucked away in third world countries. This wasn't the case many years ago with excess material from chip production in the US seen as a way to monetize the waste stream, but that's all gone now..even before we try to increase their market value with the punitive taxation of the very industries upon which their manufacture depends.

                              Aside from all of the above, it's best to remember that all taxation has social costs, we're merely shifting numbers around in a their respective columns. So, too, does industry realignment..regardless of the worthiness of it's cause by some other metric. There's an immense amount of negligence involved in selling a green future as though it's wholly and exclusively comprised of upside and benefit. It's not, and can never be. If it truly were, then, again, it would have no power to change how we live or consume. No lever by which abusive but useful and desired products could be reduced or eliminated. There must be a downside, even if that downside is contained to industries and products that we, personally, may not care about or may actively want to memory hole. Those things are still other peoples means of livelihood.

                              Which businesses do you think will see higher overheads?
                              It would be impossible to speak to specifics without you doxxing yourself, and I'm a person acutely aware of the risks of linking ones private digital persona with ones public face (particularly in this sector and climate) - but I can speak to generalities. -Everything-. Everything is affected by energy disruptions, but punitive environmental taxes impact things that it's supporters don't usually imagine. Agricultural production is profoundly impacted by just a fraction of a percent of change in fossil fuels. As are small businesses of any kind, because they don't have the ability to build a warchest to outlast disruption, and usually cannot survive long enough to see the other end of a changing consumer demand - which is what the majority of green initiatives currently rely on. Make no mistake, going green is a consumer activity. You have to want it for reasons other than the cost. Even as a business owner you'll want it for reasons other than cost. It's an immensely profitable niche, where everyone needs a new everything to replace all the old dirty somethings. The idea behind green initiatives is to enlarge that niche without reducing it's inherent profitability (so far as it goes, as a 1st world obsession). I'm not knocking it, here..and keep in mind that even playing devils advocate I'm still a person whose spent half their life and every penny I have doing this. I could have taken this same level of comprehension and used it to well and truly rape the earth, and well-meaning earth loving individuals, for immense personal profit. Just stating a fact for what it is.

                              Border adjustments can be made. The Executive Summary of Australian Climate Dividend Plan states: .
                              Economic protectionism and legislative isolation has, historically, never been the answer to anything. Even more ironically, it brings us right back to the initial objection I made as devils advocate. We can wall off the first world all we like, and we can put our own industries at a pronounced disadvantage, and we can farm our productive capacity with punitive taxes like so many heads of cabbage......but unless the rest of the world remains in a state of ecologically principled poverty and degradation, in perpetuity - we're just polishing brass on the titanic in what would have to be the most impressive example of low information consumers deluding themselves into thinking that their wallet can save the world.

                              - - - Updated - - -

                              -apologies for that wall-o-text, lol. I bottle up my concerns about the green movement just like I bottle up my concerns about it's antithesis so that I can be a more effective on-the-ground agent for transition. It's my position, and not without some considerable demonstration, that the majority of the green space is cover for political ideology. Not a practical roadmap to a better future. Knowing just a little bit about what I do you can see how that might grind on me more than some denier saying climate change isn't real while rolling coal in his converted mudtruck. I think that the practical realities of human life will eventually force us to go green whether we like it or not, in essence, all roads lead to a greener future. The greatest threat to that future, in that view, is the kind of subversion currently drawing in all of the oxygen in the room. It's not the people outside of the tent that we have to worry about anymore - the murderer is calling from inside the house.

                              - - - Updated - - -

                              To add to the above, with the cap off, it's not that I think that the plan you're practicing for as an advocate is a bad one in and of itself. It;s just that I can see that it's half baked. I don't think that you or anyone else should stop advocating for it, and even though I can point out that it depends on populist appeals and "don;t you worry your pretty little head" retorts to objection...that;s not a reason -not- to do it. I do think, though, it;s a reason to push those concerns up the chain of command so that they have a better response than "if things don't go according to our dubious plan, we'll think of something". If, for no other reason, so that you have something other than that to say if or when that objection arises.

                              We should all demand more than vague top down directives.
                              Last edited by Rhythm; 13 Nov 2019, 11:48.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X