2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 21

On June 14 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment.

On June 14 2019 09:38 Wolfstan wrote:


Historically you are correct, however I'm optimistic about a couple of new variables that may change that.

A) Advancements in technology
B) Newfound political and commercial willpower. (Paris climate agreement and green new deal)

So forgive me if I opt out of the revolution.

On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because

a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored

b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to

This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.

If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.

If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism.

On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:

Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right.

On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:

Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right.

On June 14 2019 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote:


I appreciate your optimism, however

A) What advancements, pretty sure they are part of the calculations though?
B) Countries like the US have no plans to meet their obligations under the Paris climate agreement and the GND has virtually no chance to pass in the next 10 years (when we're completely out of time).

Possibly just as importantly, even if everyone lived up to the most ambitious goals set in the GND and Paris accords, we still blow past the threshold for preventing catastrophic ecological collapse.

It's not my forgiveness you want anyway, it's those innocent kids skipping school around the world pleading with you to see your folly before they are irreparably damaged by it (beyond the health problems they're already suffering as a result).

On June 15 2019 01:58 Wolfstan wrote:


A) Advancements in fuel efficiency, solar and wind energy becoming competitive, phasing out coal, advancements in agriculture for a smaller footprint, those kinds of things.

B) The US specifically has a chance which is why we are posting in the 2020 candidates thread, many of whom support the GND. A Combination of mitigation and adaptation are definitely possible to avoid ecological colapse

On June 15 2019 06:06 Wolfstan wrote:
That is true a look at it mostly from a Canadian perspective, and I firmly believe policy needs borders where it ends. The situation of people in poorer countries is like issue number 78 on my weighting of political topics.

I believe that Canada/Australia and Scandinavian countries have the best political and economic model currently. I am also optimistic that the US is ripe for a change and look forward to its shift into something new. I currently look view where the US is now with a mixture of pity and derision.

I am certainly not interested in a communist/socialist government that you seem to think
A) the world needs to get on board with and
B) the imaginary system won't work if there is another political/economic system operates across a border to compare it to.
The world needs multiple ideas on how to best govern occurring simultaneously to see what works out best. Having different systems will obviously lead to unequal outcomes and I'm willing to live with there being poorer regions based on those systems.

On June 15 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:


As long as we recognize the viciousness of that position I can appreciate the honestly of taking it.

A) I'm open to alternatives but the ones presented (outside mine) literally lead to inexorable doom for people you generally disregard the humanity of. Maybe the suggestions I've made aren't sufficient, but neither is the status quo and in 10 years it will be far too late (the science basically says it already is too late).

B) Every system needs to first be imagined before it can be applied, let alone demonstrate success then be copied? The problem is the political/economic systems you prefer are leading us into catastrophic climate collapse with no sign of stopping.

That people are willing to sacrifice those countless millions so that they can maintain a lifestyle we in the west have become accustomed to is not a position I'm comfortable with myself.

On June 16 2019 04:19 Wolfstan wrote:


You are correct that I'm generally fine with the status quo in the countries that are doing the best with tweaks as better ways present themselves. I'm talking more about the US who have a very broken political and economic system.

I genuinely hope your imagined system can and will be executed well in places that adopt it. Just please remember your other part of your ideology and let people live their lives without the US going the white savior route and imposing your system on people that don't want it at the barrel of a gun. It has been a disaster for you to export capitalism/democracy to places like the middle east and Latin America. How would you propose to avoid disaster exporting your imagined system to the rest of the world?

I am happy with sovereign nations governing themselves as they see fit whether its social democracies in the western world, dictatorships in the third world, theocracy in the middle east and one party government in China. If your imagined system beats them all, let the people take the best parts of it with their own agency.

On June 16 2019 08:48 Dan HH wrote:
What is the correlation between ownership of the means of production and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

On June 16 2019 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


The answer is self-apparent to me so let me try an example/analogy.

We each own a hybrid and a F-350. What's the correlation between the ownership of those vehicles and the amount of carbon emissions (from the vehicles) we put into the atmosphere?

How could we end up putting out different amounts of carbon at different rates despite owning the same model vehicles?

The answer is what we choose to do with the resources we have, or in the case of capitalism, whether we (the non-wealthy) get a choice at all.

On June 16 2019 20:41 Dan HH wrote:


Sure, your average folk doesn't have any more say in a centrally planned socialist economy than in a capitalist economy. Let's say that wouldn't be the case in socialist US, are workers more willing to take one for the environment than boards of directors? Are miner unions more willing to abandon coal and retrain than shareholders are to divest themselves from coal? Is it not workers that are making the F-series the most sold car year in year out for decades regardless of how topical emissions have gotten?