^note the energy production table in the Conversation article is interactive^
blarghly @lemmy.world - 4mon
consider whether continual economic growth can ever be compatible with climate stability.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. Economic growth doesn't mean we are producing more stuff or using more materials. It means there is more productivity. So, for example, if you write some software that allows small business owners to do their taxes with less effort, that is economic growth. In fact, over the past decade or so, economic growth and resource use have become increasingly decoupled.
Anyway...
While politically the solution to climate change is hard, it is quite simple. Carbon Taxes. Climate change can't really be blamed on "the corporations" because the corporations are, by and large, pumping carbon into the atmosphere to create things people want to buy. Tvs, cars, food, toys, gasoline, bubble gum, medical supplies, sexy underwear, etc - it all requires carbon, and the people who buy these things span the economic spectrum. Some of these things are necessary. Some have better alternatives. Some could be manufactured in cleaner ways. Some are completely extraneous, but may be personally meaningful to many. How do we decide what people should be able to buy and what should be banned? We don't. We leave those choices up to individuals and the companies which manufacture the products they buy.
Instead, we disincentivize the use of the thing we actually care about: carbon. Overall, there are not that many sources of carbon, and they are relatively simple to enumerate. The government can then deploy actuaries to determine the actual carbon output of, say, a gallon of gaseoline or a pound of ground beef, and apply this tax at the point of manufacture or import. Manufacturers will pass the cost of these taxes on to consumers, and the effect is obvious. More carbon-intensive products will cost more money. This will drive consumers to alternatives.
Unfortunately, this sort of sceme is regressive, since it is essentially a sales tax. This is why most propositions for a carbon tax come with another measure: the dividend. Once the tax is collected, it is redistributed equally among citizens of the nation. The diviend means that this scheme becomes progressive. Poor people, who already spend as little as possible (and thus contribute little to climate change anyway) get more money from the dividend than they pay in taxes.
The result is a massive influx of cash into the hands of average people, who are all incentivized to spend it on removing carbon pollution from their lives as much as possible.
As time goes on and the economy adjusts, increase the tax rate. Keep increasing the tax rate until the economy is carbon neutral or carbon negative.
Also I duno why he says 2 decades, it started under the labor government back in Rudd/Gillard days, then went on ice for a lost decade while these morons were in charge:
And now is back on track
The latest figures show a 1.4% drop over the past year. But if the emissions of Australian gas and coal burned overseas are considered, Australia’s emissions would still be rising.
Right so this isn't about Australia is about the World in which case other countries should clean up their act, India is adding an Australia's worth of emissions every couple of years:
1
Dave. - 4mon
this isn't about Australia is about the World in which case other countries should clean up their act, India is adding an Australia's worth of emissions every couple of years:
Nonono don't you know we're supposed to guiltily whip ourselves over our sinfully high per-capita emissions? Forget about actual tons emitted by countries, focus on the person, not countries or corporations or industry where governmental policies of said countries can have the most effect.
Gorgritch_umie_killa in environment
Getting rid of fossil fuels is really hard – and we’re not making much progress
https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-fossil-fuels-is-really-hard-and-were-not-making-much-progress-262525Jevons Paradox, Wikipedia
^note the energy production table in the Conversation article is interactive^
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. Economic growth doesn't mean we are producing more stuff or using more materials. It means there is more productivity. So, for example, if you write some software that allows small business owners to do their taxes with less effort, that is economic growth. In fact, over the past decade or so, economic growth and resource use have become increasingly decoupled.
Anyway...
While politically the solution to climate change is hard, it is quite simple. Carbon Taxes. Climate change can't really be blamed on "the corporations" because the corporations are, by and large, pumping carbon into the atmosphere to create things people want to buy. Tvs, cars, food, toys, gasoline, bubble gum, medical supplies, sexy underwear, etc - it all requires carbon, and the people who buy these things span the economic spectrum. Some of these things are necessary. Some have better alternatives. Some could be manufactured in cleaner ways. Some are completely extraneous, but may be personally meaningful to many. How do we decide what people should be able to buy and what should be banned? We don't. We leave those choices up to individuals and the companies which manufacture the products they buy.
Instead, we disincentivize the use of the thing we actually care about: carbon. Overall, there are not that many sources of carbon, and they are relatively simple to enumerate. The government can then deploy actuaries to determine the actual carbon output of, say, a gallon of gaseoline or a pound of ground beef, and apply this tax at the point of manufacture or import. Manufacturers will pass the cost of these taxes on to consumers, and the effect is obvious. More carbon-intensive products will cost more money. This will drive consumers to alternatives.
Unfortunately, this sort of sceme is regressive, since it is essentially a sales tax. This is why most propositions for a carbon tax come with another measure: the dividend. Once the tax is collected, it is redistributed equally among citizens of the nation. The diviend means that this scheme becomes progressive. Poor people, who already spend as little as possible (and thus contribute little to climate change anyway) get more money from the dividend than they pay in taxes.
The result is a massive influx of cash into the hands of average people, who are all incentivized to spend it on removing carbon pollution from their lives as much as possible.
As time goes on and the economy adjusts, increase the tax rate. Keep increasing the tax rate until the economy is carbon neutral or carbon negative.
we had it, we voted them out and removed it
Australians up in arms over carbon tax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f2trZC0nkk
Very weirdly worded article
Yeah and... it's working...?
https://openelectricity.org.au/
Also I duno why he says 2 decades, it started under the labor government back in Rudd/Gillard days, then went on ice for a lost decade while these morons were in charge:
And now is back on track
Right so this isn't about Australia is about the World in which case other countries should clean up their act, India is adding an Australia's worth of emissions every couple of years:
Nonono don't you know we're supposed to guiltily whip ourselves over our sinfully high per-capita emissions? Forget about actual tons emitted by countries, focus on the person, not countries or corporations or industry where governmental policies of said countries can have the most effect.