Combating Global Warming -How Much Are You Willing to Pay?

[Frodo]

Who here is willing to put their money where their mouth is?  If this problem is as big as you make it out to be, surely there would be no limit to what you would do to fight it.    

[DavidB.]

Who here is willing to put their money where their mouth is?  If this problem is as big as you make it out to be, surely there would be no limit to what you would do to fight it.    

I don't.

No (R).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's a similar situation to any social insurance policy. Sure I don't might not like paying now for NI contributions, but it's building a nest egg in the future. Most leftist greens seek to find a way to achieve the two aims (wealty distribution and climate mitigation in tandem).

@DavidB

Considering the country you live in, I would recommend hedging your bets...

[TNF]

No, I'm not willing to pay more. It's hard enough to make ends meet with my current utility bill, I can't imagine having to pay more while the people are actually responsible for the problem (i.e. the owners of industry) pay just pennies more on the dollar.

[Thunderbird is the word]

No, I'm not willing to pay more. It's hard enough to make ends meet with my current utility bill, I can't imagine having to pay more while the people are actually responsible for the problem (i.e. the owners of industry) pay just pennies more on the dollar.

What would your alternative be then?

[The Last Northerner]

Yes (I/O) and I would go even further if agriculture, petro, and other subsidies be reformed. A classic example is how beef/dairy is abnormally cheap from subsidies but envirornmentally destructive. It takes ~2,500 gallons of water to grow 1 pound of beef. See California as a reference.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Who here is willing to put their money where their mouth is?  If this problem is as big as you make it out to be, surely there would be no limit to what you would do to fight it.   

Not so much a matter of putting your money where your mouth is, as it still costs nothing to vote yes in an internet poll.   In the abstract, I can support it.  But does anyone have a clue how much more an increase in price would make sense, and what the likelihood and magnitude of any possible difference it will make?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, I can afford it. But TNF is right that the bulk of the effort should be made by large industries, and certainly not by the working class.

[TNF]

No, I'm not willing to pay more. It's hard enough to make ends meet with my current utility bill, I can't imagine having to pay more while the people are actually responsible for the problem (i.e. the owners of industry) pay just pennies more on the dollar.

What would your alternative be then?

Establish a planned economy whereby we can make the kinds of changes necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change. The bulk of the problem was caused by the capitalist class, and they should be the ones who pay for it.

[PJ]

No. The idea that people need to pay higher utility bills in order to combat is a false dichotomy, and the reason why I'm not a fan of schemes like the carbon tax. The most efficient way to combat the energy sector's impacts on climate change is to nationalize the sector.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. The idea that people need to pay higher utility bills in order to combat is a false dichotomy, and the reason why I'm not a fan of schemes like the carbon tax. The most efficient way to combat the energy sector's impacts on climate change is to nationalize the sector.

what difference does that make?

[traininthedistance]

Well, let me put it this way: I've come to the conclusion that I can't in good conscience ever own a car, and have subsequently built my life around that, largely because of the environmental effects of automobile dependency. 

Obviously it would be awful to stick the poor with higher utility bills, and as CrabCake said any green movement worth their salt will pair wealth redistribution with GHG reduction.  But it's pure magical thinking to claim that nobody should have to give up anything or change any of their behaviors, that everything can all just be pinned on some big bad Other.  As Walt Kelly said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

[TNF]

Obviously it would be awful to stick the poor with higher utility bills, and as CrabCake said any green movement worth their salt will pair wealth redistribution with GHG reduction.  But it's pure magical thinking to claim that nobody should have to give up anything or change any of their behaviors, that everything can all just be pinned on some big bad Other.  As Walt Kelly said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

The problem with this is that, yes, everything can be all just pinned on one big bad Other, and that's the capitalist class. They have created the economic system which has caused climatic change, they are the ones reliant upon fossil fuels to make their economic system, which enriches them at the expense of us rich. Working people didn't sit down and vote on this system. We were forced into it because we didn't have any other option, and yet this whole thing is somehow our fault, too? Utter bullsh!t. The capitalist system created the ecological crisis and it must be held accountable for it. The only solution is the abolition of capitalism, the institution of a planned economy, and the transformation of nature so that we can subordinate it to human needs.

Climate change as it is is not inherently wrong, but climate change that threatens to wipe out human civilization because it is blindly being pushed by a system without any sort of driver behind the wheel is. We should take control of our productive capacity and use it to change the climate in a way that makes life on this planet better for all human beings, not just the capitalist bloodsuckers who created the current crisis.

[traininthedistance]

Obviously it would be awful to stick the poor with higher utility bills, and as CrabCake said any green movement worth their salt will pair wealth redistribution with GHG reduction.  But it's pure magical thinking to claim that nobody should have to give up anything or change any of their behaviors, that everything can all just be pinned on some big bad Other.  As Walt Kelly said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

The problem with this is that, yes, everything can be all just pinned on one big bad Other, and that's the capitalist class. They have created the economic system which has caused climatic change, they are the ones reliant upon fossil fuels to make their economic system, which enriches them at the expense of us rich. Working people didn't sit down and vote on this system. We were forced into it because we didn't have any other option, and yet this whole thing is somehow our fault, too? Utter bullsh!t. The capitalist system created the ecological crisis and it must be held accountable for it. The only solution is the abolition of capitalism, the institution of a planned economy, and the transformation of nature so that we can subordinate it to human needs.

Climate change as it is is not inherently wrong, but climate change that threatens to wipe out human civilization because it is blindly being pushed by a system without any sort of driver behind the wheel is. We should take control of our productive capacity and use it to change the climate in a way that makes life on this planet better for all human beings, not just the capitalist bloodsuckers who created the current crisis.

Humans have been modifying this planet– and watching their societies collapse due to overexploitation of natural resources– since long before the invention of industrial capitalism, or even before the invention of money.  Capitalism is an exacerbating factor, sure, but the sort of short-term thinking that got us in this mess is deeply ingrained and transcends political/economic systems. Combating it requires an approach far less reductionist than you'd prefer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Best thing you can do is actually to use less energy. This applies to all of us, but especially to any Americans present.

[PJ]

No. The idea that people need to pay higher utility bills in order to combat is a false dichotomy, and the reason why I'm not a fan of schemes like the carbon tax. The most efficient way to combat the energy sector's impacts on climate change is to nationalize the sector.

what difference does that make?

Wrote that post in a bit of a hurry, so I didn't have time to explain my full thoughts on the matter.

While the transition to renewable energy is obviously necessary, it would be much more inefficient and difficult to accomplish under private ownership. Companies have to be incentivized to operate in a more environmentally friendly way and will not do so until it is profitable for them. The existence of private oil companies and their lobbying is a huge hindrance to that, and if non-renewable energy sources were to be banned under privately owned energy, it would leave many out of work. This is all in addition to the high utility costs that come with many proposed solutions to climate change.

Nationalization of the entire sector would allow the government to rapidly shift to renewable energy while phasing out non-renewables, instead of trying to persuade private institutions to do so. The government could ensure that employees whose jobs are elminated would be provided with other jobs before their's are removed. And since heating and whatnot are one of life's most basic necessities, I already support providing all with energy free of charge (or at least at a reduced and reasonable rate until free energy is feasible), which could be accomplished with planned control of the sector.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. The idea that people need to pay higher utility bills in order to combat is a false dichotomy, and the reason why I'm not a fan of schemes like the carbon tax. The most efficient way to combat the energy sector's impacts on climate change is to nationalize the sector.

what difference does that make?

Wrote that post in a bit of a hurry, so I didn't have time to explain my full thoughts on the matter.

While the transition to renewable energy is obviously necessary, it would be much more inefficient and difficult to accomplish under private ownership. Companies have to be incentivized to operate in a more environmentally friendly way and will not do so until it is profitable for them. The existence of private oil companies and their lobbying is a huge hindrance to that, and if non-renewable energy sources were to be banned under privately owned energy, it would leave many out of work. This is all in addition to the high utility costs that come with many proposed solutions to climate change.

Nationalization of the entire sector would allow the government to rapidly shift to renewable energy while phasing out non-renewables, instead of trying to persuade private institutions to do so. The government could ensure that employees whose jobs are elminated would be provided with other jobs before their's are removed. And since heating and whatnot are one of life's most basic necessities, I already support providing all with energy free of charge (or at least at a reduced and reasonable rate until free energy is feasible), which could be accomplished with planned control of the sector.

So, rationing?

One of the things about free or inexpensive energy is that it there is no financial inventive to conserve energy.  The transition to renewables is a large project without a single, clear path, so a rapid replacement is not something that can be counted on.  And even then, the environmental cost even of renewable energy is not zero, when you consider the impact upon the land and waterways of solar panels, wind farms, hydraulic plants, etc., so there will still be a need for conservation and wise use.

[bedstuy]

This idea of paying to fix global warming is a bit screwy. 

The environment itself is a resource.  You can spend money, or you can spend clean air, clean water, etc.  Hurricanes, desertification, wildlife loss, rising oceans, water crises, these all cost money.  And, those all effect basic human needs, having shelter and food are basic needs. 

So, it's ridiculous to make global warming mitigation out to be a luxury.  Either we pay now by creating a more sustainable energy system or we pay later by having a climate that doesn't support our civilization as well.

[DavidB.]

@DavidB

Considering the country you live in, I would recommend hedging your bets...

"Would you be willing to pay?" sadly isn't the same question as "Will you be paying?"

[PJ]

No. The idea that people need to pay higher utility bills in order to combat is a false dichotomy, and the reason why I'm not a fan of schemes like the carbon tax. The most efficient way to combat the energy sector's impacts on climate change is to nationalize the sector.

what difference does that make?

Wrote that post in a bit of a hurry, so I didn't have time to explain my full thoughts on the matter.

While the transition to renewable energy is obviously necessary, it would be much more inefficient and difficult to accomplish under private ownership. Companies have to be incentivized to operate in a more environmentally friendly way and will not do so until it is profitable for them. The existence of private oil companies and their lobbying is a huge hindrance to that, and if non-renewable energy sources were to be banned under privately owned energy, it would leave many out of work. This is all in addition to the high utility costs that come with many proposed solutions to climate change.

Nationalization of the entire sector would allow the government to rapidly shift to renewable energy while phasing out non-renewables, instead of trying to persuade private institutions to do so. The government could ensure that employees whose jobs are elminated would be provided with other jobs before their's are removed. And since heating and whatnot are one of life's most basic necessities, I already support providing all with energy free of charge (or at least at a reduced and reasonable rate until free energy is feasible), which could be accomplished with planned control of the sector.

So, rationing?

To an extent. People use far too much energy as is, as has already been stated ITT.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having heating and cooling in one's home is not something that should be contingent upon one's ability to pay for it. Naturally, I would be opposed to a nationalization scheme that preserves coal and oil, but nationalizing it makes a transition much easier because it is all under the control of a single institution not focused on profit. I agree that even with nationalization, conservation and wise use is still necessary, and it obviously would not be a cheap endeavor.

[ingemann]

sign

This thread make me sad, of course that's not the problem, the problem is that the mix of pure stupidity in this thread should make everybody sad. I never thought that I would see a discussion about climate change, where it was the left, who made me want beat my head into the wall, until the brain matter began to sip out of my ears, just to end my suffering. Congratulation true lefties, you have succeed in showing, not only do you lack any real solutions, the ones you want to embrace are worse than letting a bunch of Captain Planet villains implement their solutions.

[muon2]

Energy efficiency is the easiest to subsidize. Large industrial energy consumers have a great deal to gain in cost savings. Their barrier is often large upfront capital costs. Tax credits targeted to implement more efficient energy strategies can reduce the size of the cost barrier and thus reduce energy demand from some of the most significant consumers. Heating and cooling office space is another large demand source that can be incentivized to upgrade efficiency.

Tax credits do cost the taxpayer if the services remain fixed. However, if energy use is reduced there will be less demand for new power generation and that will offset the tax burden with lower long-term energy costs.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not very much, really. I'm suspicious that what I make is below the poverty line. As far as everything goes, I'm really just a victim of the industrialists anyway, and they should be the ones paying for this stuff.