Climate change and human responsibility

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Corral

Well it may be that you and I are not far apart on this. However what you describe as market regulation sounds to me like market intervention by the state. The market is not a panacea for climate action. If what you are saying is that state intervention is needed than we are agreed.

Market purists would say that market regulation should be limited to ensuring transparency and eliminating transaction costs. Imposing a price is intervention not regulation IMHO

Safety and social impacts are also already regulated to varying degrees. We also already have a number of other 'interventions' that haven't inalterably destroyed the 'free-market' aspect of our mixed-economy (Bottle deposits, recycling/disposal fees, vice taxes, industry subsidies, etc. )

Personally, I'm in favour of more incremental incentives/disincentives that still retain the vast majority of consumer and market freedom. I hate any proposal like 'ban sale of ICE cars by 2040' for a lot of reasons. But, I'd be totally open to '2% MSRP levy on sale of new ICE starting in 2032 (4% in 2034, 6% 2036, etc.)'

A few other ideas:
1. Change GST to GT of 10% (Sale of New Goods only - used items exempt). Retain (and possibly expand) current GST exemptions on essential goods. This is also a good little reduction of red-tape for a lot of service oriented small business operators. This would also really encourage 2nd-hand operations and incentivize repair over replacement.

2. Price displayed is the price you pay. Minimal impact, but retailers can decide if they want to keep displaying 29.99 or move to 32.99 (most will probably take the opportunity to go to 34.99, which is a result I'm perfectly okay with).

3. Sugar tax. I'm sure other people have figured how this could work. I'd be good with increase to vice taxes and carbon taxes, too.

4. Explore other luxury taxes. RV's, quads, dirt bikes, boats, etc. (if necessary, some limited exemptions for agricultural and fishermen, etc.). Meat? seems politically suicidal right now, but maybe in a few decades people will be ready to accept a modest meat tax.

5. Explore subsidies for local manufacturers (without violating trade agreements). Something along the lines of Alberta's small brewery system seemed okay to me, but I can't say I recall the specific details that well. This stuff is obviously a bit more complex.


Are these things going to save the environment? Hell no. But they are a move in the right direction to incentivize consumption decisions, without inalterably changing our way of life or cost of living.

[Enoch Root]

I think there needs to be a global body defining the rules and ensuring everyone plays by them. Those that don't comply being subject to significant economic sanctions.

[jayswin]

Yep, and here in lies the reason that true climate change action is fairly fruitless. The superpowers are smart enough to not subject themselves to anything more than token promises and boasts with unreliable, questionable or outright fake data.

Meanwhile the small to medium countries actually do things (usually economic harming action that doesn't help the environment) while the superpowers look on and make comments and keep things focused on the lightweights.

I mean one of America's biggest contributions to climate change is shining a light on Canada, and they're incredible at it. It's perfect, too. Stomps out the competition AND keeps their satirists/media/citizens off their own backs.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think there needs to be a global body defining the rules and ensuring everyone plays by them. Those that don't comply being subject to significant economic sanctions.

World Environment & Energy Police. WEEP.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by zamler

I disagree, pretty much everything made from petroleum is difficult or impossible to recycle and will take 10,000 years to break down.

What’s wrong with that?

If we use oil only for products which there aren’t good substitutes we have a virtually unlimited supply at a very manageable CO2 emmissions rate. Landfilling plastic is sustainable. We should work to to reduce usage but oil made products is not an issue that needs solving today.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zamler

Maybe you're right. But for example think about a power tool that uses glass fiber reinforced plastic how do you recycle that? It takes a bevy of chemicals to break it down, or you grind it into pellets, melt it, purify, then make other products. The process and energy to do that from what I've read is hardly worth the trouble.

And we basically know plastic is not something feasible financially to recycle that's why 90% of it ends up in the ground. There has to be a better way.

Why can't stuff like that be put into a smelt that is producing metals and simply burned up at a high temperature?

If you are worried about pollution, simply find a better way to scrub everything which from what I've read is doable.

Not everything is recyclable, but we should be able to make heat or power from it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Safety and social impacts are also already regulated to varying degrees. We also already have a number of other 'interventions' that haven't inalterably destroyed the 'free-market' aspect of our mixed-economy (Bottle deposits, recycling/disposal fees, vice taxes, industry subsidies, etc. )

Personally, I'm in favour of more incremental incentives/disincentives that still retain the vast majority of consumer and market freedom. I hate any proposal like 'ban sale of ICE cars by 2040' for a lot of reasons. But, I'd be totally open to '2% MSRP levy on sale of new ICE starting in 2032 (4% in 2034, 6% 2036, etc.)'

A few other ideas:
1. Change GST to GT of 10% (Sale of New Goods only - used items exempt). Retain (and possibly expand) current GST exemptions on essential goods. This is also a good little reduction of red-tape for a lot of service oriented small business operators. This would also really encourage 2nd-hand operations and incentivize repair over replacement.

2. Price displayed is the price you pay. Minimal impact, but retailers can decide if they want to keep displaying 29.99 or move to 32.99 (most will probably take the opportunity to go to 34.99, which is a result I'm perfectly okay with).

3. Sugar tax. I'm sure other people have figured how this could work. I'd be good with increase to vice taxes and carbon taxes, too.

4. Explore other luxury taxes. RV's, quads, dirt bikes, boats, etc. (if necessary, some limited exemptions for agricultural and fishermen, etc.). Meat? seems politically suicidal right now, but maybe in a few decades people will be ready to accept a modest meat tax.

5. Explore subsidies for local manufacturers (without violating trade agreements). Something along the lines of Alberta's small brewery system seemed okay to me, but I can't say I recall the specific details that well. This stuff is obviously a bit more complex.


Are these things going to save the environment? Hell no. But they are a move in the right direction to incentivize consumption decisions, without inalterably changing our way of life or cost of living.

Couple things to add.

The right to repair law needs to pass. I think that would make a significant difference the day it is passed. Combine that with a subsidy or tax reduction on 2nd hand or used stuff and you might have a real winner.

Biggest use case of course would be used vehicles, used farm equipment, used clothes.

Secondly, Not sure I agree with the meat tax, but I would agree with subsidizing locally grown food which I think does everything you want.

People seem to think that 'meat' is a problem because of the supposed emissions, however if managed properly meat production can create natural fertilizer which could remove the C02 emissions from chemically / factory manufactured fertilizer.

Great example is corn. Growing corn can utilize a lot of manure from barns, feedlots, etc. Subsidize that instead.

Not sure what the usage statistics are, but I am familiar with the industry and not a lot of people go into growing corn because of the high entry cost.

[powderjunkie]

^ All good points. I'm not particularly passionate about a meat tax - it's more illustrative of targeting specific items that are inherently more problematic and difficult to fully account for their impacts, without going to an outright ban (therefore allowing people to continue making a living and continue to purchase it if they so choose).

Much like the oil sands, meat suffers from a real PR problem. Overall, it's probably not nearly as bad as most people think, but that doesn't mean there aren't still legitimate environmental and ethical concerns (especially with factory farming). Ideally we would target factory farming alone, making the local guy more competitive.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

^ All good points. I'm not particularly passionate about a meat tax - it's more illustrative of targeting specific items that are inherently more problematic and difficult to fully account for their impacts, without going to an outright ban (therefore allowing people to continue making a living and continue to purchase it if they so choose).

Much like the oil sands, meat suffers from a real PR problem. Overall, it's probably not nearly as bad as most people think, but that doesn't mean there aren't still legitimate environmental and ethical concerns (especially with factory farming). Ideally we would target factory farming alone, making the local guy more competitive.

The local guy likely ends up being more intensive per lb of meet produced. Factory farms have the anti-biotic resistance and animal welfare issues but from a CO2 standpoint I would bet they are more efficient.

They can do things like add seaweed to reduce methane emmissions on a scale the small producer can’t. They also have the most efficient means of feed/kg meat. The question would be does the trucking and other inputs offset the efficiency gains.

The eat local movement isn’t always as simple as local is better. If something is tricked from California vs grown in a greenhouse in Alberta I’m not sure where the math ends up.

[powderjunkie]

There's more to good environmental policy than CO2. So many of these apple A to apple B comparisons come out close to a wash. Disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers? Situationally dependent, but total environmental impact is pretty much a toss-up.

The tie-breakers for me come in the form of incremental reductions of total consumption, circulating more money in the local economy (as happens with $$ spent on services compared to $$ spent on goods), and ethical/moral issues (as murky and subjective as they can be).

It's definitely true that a lot of the 'green' actions we take are actually counter-productive (e.g. buying a new Tesla instead of a used car or just keeping what you already have, etc.)

[Manhattanboy]

What are climate refugees? Serious q. Heard the term uttered today by May.

[GirlySports]

People who have to move because their homeland is no longer viable due to conditions like drought or rising seas

You know, like Penguins.

[Wormius]

Yeah, likely referring to anybody whose regions are uninhabitable due to climate change.

[Manhattanboy]

Oh I see. So once the Liberals, NDP and Greens get their way Albertans will become economic refugees.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Sadly, we're both living in fantasy-land. But ~50/50 of both approaches is probably the best bet...

Yeah I think while it's debatable what is the easiest path to salvation here, it's pretty obvious that things are dire and really anyone who does care should try to push on all fronts.

As I said, I personally don't think you can make e dent in fossil spending through consumer action, but I do still think it's critical to try be a green consumer.

For one thing, every little bit counts.

Another reason is what I mentioned before, consumer choices affect the society, making green choices more acceptable and desirable.

There's also the fact that if you don't first have the early adopters, who create a market where green products can profitably exist, then you never get to a point where political action is feasible.

If nobody bought electric cars now, it would be completely unfeasible to consider limiting who can buy petrol cars, because there would be no realistic alternative.

If there wasn't a plethora of perfectly adequate (and constantly improving) "meat replacement" products in existence, you couldn't push for less meat use.

The easiest way to push for large changes is to keep make small changes everywhere you can. Every small change makes it easier to make the next change

Additionally, when consumers create a market for green products, they create companies that have a financial incentive to support green political action. It's ####ed that this is matters, but of course it matters.


Now whether or not we're both living in fantasy land thinking this problem might get tackled, I happen to think climate change is going to hit us much faster and harder than most people think. To an extent that I think in less than five years the debate will largely be over and we'll mostly be in collective panic mode. It's why I think top down change is possible, but it's also why I've been starting to knock things off from my bucket list.

(I'm doing pretty well. It's really just "see the Flames play live" and some sex stuff at this point, and the sex stuff I think has a high probability of happening soonish.)

[GirlySports]

It's days like this I wonder why everyone has to be in the office. Many of us have the capability to work from home. It would reduce cars on the road and accidents.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

^ All good points. I'm not particularly passionate about a meat tax - it's more illustrative of targeting specific items that are inherently more problematic and difficult to fully account for their impacts, without going to an outright ban (therefore allowing people to continue making a living and continue to purchase it if they so choose).

Much like the oil sands, meat suffers from a real PR problem. Overall, it's probably not nearly as bad as most people think, but that doesn't mean there aren't still legitimate environmental and ethical concerns (especially with factory farming). Ideally we would target factory farming alone, making the local guy more competitive.

Interesting point about the oil sands.

Something like 75% of all research and funding into green energy is done through the oil sands and companies associated with the oil sands.

The anti pipeline / oil sands whack jobs who are hating on it can't even be bothered to look at where the funding and research for green energy comes from before they go on their campaign to shut it all down.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

The local guy likely ends up being more intensive per lb of meet produced. Factory farms have the anti-biotic resistance and animal welfare issues but from a CO2 standpoint I would bet they are more efficient.

They can do things like add seaweed to reduce methane emmissions on a scale the small producer can’t. They also have the most efficient means of feed/kg meat. The question would be does the trucking and other inputs offset the efficiency gains.

The eat local movement isn’t always as simple as local is better. If something is tricked from California vs grown in a greenhouse in Alberta I’m not sure where the math ends up.

Also, you can't possibly expect locally grown produce to replace the supply of factory farmed produce.

But, I disagree about the C02 emissions. Growing something in your own garden is much more efficient and green than growing something in California and shipping it up here.

Nevermind the chemicals & energy needed to sustain the produce as it is shipped across state lines.

If you pay attention to how your local grower is doing things, you'll notice it is much more green and environmentally friendly.

[burn_this_city]

After the snow this weekend, I'm wondering if Socal will take me as a climate refugee.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

After the snow this weekend, I'm wondering if Socal will take me as a climate refugee.

Weather refugee.

Pay attention.