EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1192
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 09 2018 01:47 Big J wrote: I don't believe we have 12 years anymore. This is a conservative bullshit statement because the truth would be too inconvenient. The ship has sailed. The forecasts of the last years seem to indicate that we are going for 3-4 degrees, 2-3 if immidiate action is taken and conservatives are killed in the thousands to make political change possible. The thing is, if we say "it's fucked anyway" (and of course it already is to some extent), people will use this argument to justify further inaction. In French we have a very relevant idiom for this: Après moi le déluge. Literally, "after me the flood" ... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2018 02:22 TheDwf wrote: The thing is, if we say "it's fucked anyway" (and of course it already is to some extent), people will use this argument to justify further inaction. In French we have a very relevant idiom for this: Après moi le déluge. Literally, "after me the flood" ... There is the same saying in German: "Hinter mir die Sintflut." I agree with your sentiment, but really, everyone that should know how grim the situation is knows about it. They are responsible, they should pay the price, like the good capitalists they are. The price I want imposed on them for trying to gas me is rather high from my personal point of view. I personally buy a tiny bit of gas and coal each year for cooking, heating and the occasional BBQ, that's literally all the possessions that I have control over and from which I could reduce CO2. I, like almost all other people in the world, am not responsible. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 09 2018 02:47 Big J wrote: There is the same saying in German: "Hinter mir die Sintflut." I agree with your sentiment, but really, everyone that should know how grim the situation is knows about it. They are responsible, they should pay the price, like the good capitalists they are. The price I want imposed on them for trying to gas me is rather high from my personal point of view. I personally buy a tiny bit of gas and coal each year for cooking, heating and the occasional BBQ, that's literally all the possessions that I have control over and from which I could reduce CO2. Are you being sarcastic? Voting is the first thing that comes to mind. Second transportation, third food, fourth consumption, fifth travel, sixth compensation, seventh missionary action; just to name a few. But I suspect you're being rather sarcastic. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
But to bring out rhetoric along the lines off "they are responsible, they should pay the price", doesn't make a lot of sense, this isn't some sort of divine punishment, it's a problem that can be solved, and must be balanced against other issues, and it can't be used as some sort of device to disregard everything else that is happening in politics. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
That these tipping points aren't well defined to the ton shouldn't be too surprising given the scale and uncertainty we're talking about here. And between manageable and much worse there is an argument to be made that this difference in change can be called doomsday for certain regions of the world and given societal pressure and division even for more than those immediately affected. It's kinda hyperbolic but not without reason. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2018 02:51 Artisreal wrote: Are you being sarcastic? Voting is the first thing that comes to mind. Second transportation, third food, fourth consumption, fifth travel, sixth compensation, seventh missionary action; just to name a few. But I suspect you're being rather sarcastic. Nope, I am not being sarcastic at all. Eating beef is not the problem (it is actually a solution), raising the cattle is. And I don't raise cattle. I don't give a damn about stupid belief in market forces. If I (and many others) don't eat beef then the investor will change the price (e.g. through less wages), the conservative parties the taxes and subventions, or the central bank the money supply. It is not in the hands of the consumers. They do not have enough money to make an impact. We live in capitalism, it's the personal responsibility of those that produce. Sorry if it is inconvenient to live in capitalism in this question and therefore holding the full, personal responsiblity over every machine you own. I'm not gonna take the blame for something that I have to accept in every other question as well, when it is convenient for them. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:11 Nyxisto wrote: It's unhelpful to frame climate change as a sort of secular replacement for the judgement day. "We have 12 years to solve climate change" is a nonsensical statement. There's no point after which we are suddenly "inside of climate change", it's a gradual process and the damage and cost it imposes on us are not binary. It's not gradual (as in, "linear"), that's the problem. But to bring out rhetoric along the lines off "they are responsible, they should pay the price", doesn't make a lot of sense, this isn't some sort of divine punishment, it's a problem that can be solved, and must be balanced against other issues, and it can't be used as some sort of device to disregard everything else that is happening in politics. Capitalists do not pay enough for negative externalities such as pollution, that's a fact. If the "real" price was calculated, i.e. factoring the irreversible damages that such or such activity would cause in the next decades, many branches would cease to exist. They don't because they currently live thanks to a massive ecological debt, "hidden" and delayed | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:27 Plansix wrote: The planet’s temperature and climate do not operate under capitalism and subscribe to the theory of collective responsibility. Much like war, climate change does not give two shit about who is responsible and must be dealt with collectively. If you want me to deal with it give me the capital to do so. You deny me the right to control things around me, but then I should take responsiblity for how it is controlled? That is delusional. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:29 Big J wrote: If you want me to deal with it give me the capital to do so. You deny me the right to control things around me, but then I should take responsiblity for how it is controlled? That is delusional. Edit: That is how it is when nations go to war. Many people did not create the problems that cause the war, but are expected to pay taxes and serve is necessary if the nation has to go to war. You will be responsible as everyone else is, for the taxes and changes to the economy that will be required to combat climate change. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:27 Plansix wrote: The planet’s temperature and climate do not operate under capitalism and subscribe to the theory of collective responsibility. Much like war, climate change does not give two shit about who is responsible and must be dealt with collectively. Climate change does not, but we people do. We cannot tackle such an issue without addressing the causes, and an economic system tailored for blind profit is the problem number one | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:28 TheDwf wrote: It's not gradual (as in, "linear"), that's the problem. Capitalists do not pay enough for negative externalities such as pollution, that's a fact. If the "real" price was calculated, i.e. factoring the irreversible damages that such or such activity would cause in the next decades, many branches would cease to exist. They don't because they currently live thanks to a massive ecological debt, "hidden" and delayed I'm no climate scientist and as far as I know the debate around whether climate change is dynamic, accelerating, linear or not isn't really settled but I would just warn against turning it into a sort of ersatz-religion where everything else stops to matter and it turns into this weird political subject. For example there was an article about California going 100% green by 2045, after the wildifres, but cutting the fire department funding. Like, fixing climate change is important, but the immediate solution is also to not defund your fire department so you can put out wildfires who will continue to exist regardless, and are possibly not related to climate change. Don't make it some sort of appeasement to nature or whatever. Also as for it's relation to capitalism. Yes, the costs of climate change aren't fully internalised on part of the producers, but the basic reason for global warming is a rapid expansion of our productive capacities, which you have no matter what political system you're in as its bound by technological limits. And on the flipside, of course, there are the consumers who benefit from the not internalised costs. So if you were to put it straight up to a vote and you would let people chose between a higher standard of living or a reduction in polluting activity, the former would probably win out. Socialism or whatever -ism does nothing to address that baseline pollution that is simply the result of industrial activity. You can move the costs around on paper how much you want but at the end of the day it's always both consumers and producers who pay already. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
So if you were to put it straight up to a vote and you would let people chose between a higher standard of living or a reduction in polluting activity, the former would probably win out. Socialism or whatever -ism does nothing to address that baseline pollution that is simply the result of industrial activity. Yeah. The only -ism that addresses the problem is turning those things off. But if I go to turn a coal power plant off, I'm 100% certain that I will be stopped from doing so, arrested and if I succeed for a moment it will be turned on again. Why? Because I don't have the social right - called property - to do so. So either you hold those people responsible that have that right, or you change that right. There are no other solutions. The planet doesn't care about the costs of those things, only that it stops. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And hooking all those billions of people in India, China or Africa up with electricity cars and washing machines is the driver of consumption of materials and energy so unless you have an -ism that makes those machines ten times more efficient that's not really an angle worth pursuing. We're better off thinking about how we discourage inefficient production, mitigate negative effects for the people most strongly affected and accelerate technology. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 09 2018 03:22 Big J wrote: Nope, I am not being sarcastic at all. Eating beef is not the problem (it is actually a solution), raising the cattle is. And I don't raise cattle. I don't give a damn about stupid belief in market forces. If I (and many others) don't eat beef then the investor will change the price (e.g. through less wages), the conservative parties the taxes and subventions, or the central bank the money supply. It is not in the hands of the consumers. They do not have enough money to make an impact. We live in capitalism, it's the personal responsibility of those that produce. Sorry if it is inconvenient to live in capitalism in this question and therefore holding the full, personal responsiblity over every machine you own. I'm not gonna take the blame for something that I have to accept in every other question as well, when it is convenient for them. While I don't understand your reasoning why eating beef is the solution, I find the perspective you give interesting, albeit I cannot agree with it. There are many examples where the power of the people changed the course of corporate action. Be it with dangerous chemicals in outdoor wear or gmo plants on our fields. Or even the phasing out of nuclear and lignite coal energy production. What you implicitly state is that without voting in the right people into government, this will only stay the drop in the ocean and not become a massive wave. Environmental protection is driven by legislation every since. To underscore my confusion about beef: Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock - it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland. ... The study, published in the journal Science, created a huge dataset based on almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covering 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification). ... Dr Peter Alexander, at the University of Edinburgh, UK, was also impressed but noted: “There may be environmental benefits, eg for biodiversity, from sustainably managed grazing and increasing animal product consumption may improve nutrition for some of the poorest globally. My personal opinion is we should interpret these results not as the need to become vegan overnight, but rather to moderate our [meat] consumption.” Source And an important part for our resident next connoisseurs : If the most harmful half of meat and dairy production was replaced by plant-based food, this still delivers about two-thirds of the benefits of getting rid of all meat and dairy production. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:11 Artisreal wrote: While I don't understand your reasoning why eating beef is the solution, I find the perspective you give interesting, albeit I cannot agree with it. There are many examples where the power of the people changed the course of corporate action. Be it with dangerous chemicals in outdoor wear or gmo plants on our fields. Or even the phasing out of nuclear and lignite coal energy production. Well, eating the cattle makes it go away. An eaten cattle cannot fart. But you are right, since I don't make the decision to kill it - and it really is killing the cattle, not eating the cattle which helps -, my eating doesn't improve the status quo. Doesn't make it worse though either. On October 09 2018 04:11 Artisreal wrote: What you implicitly state is that without voting in the right people into government, this will only stay the drop in the ocean and not become a massive wave. Environmental protection is driven by legislation every since. I mean, factually if we are precise it is not voting the right people into government, it is just creating the social contracts - whether they are laws or not is irrelevant - that reduce the production. And buying less may be a drop in the ocean because we do *some form of social contract* in the right direction, with many drops in the ocean having some weigth. But our main institution to create general social contracts - so called laws - is institutional politics. So yes, it is a question of legislation for the most part. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11645 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:30 Big J wrote: Well, eating the cattle makes it go away. An eaten cattle cannot fart. But you are right, since I don't make the decision to kill it - and it really is killing the cattle, not eating the cattle which helps -, my eating doesn't improve the status quo. Doesn't make it worse though either. I mean, factually if we are precise it is not voting the right people into government, it is just creating the social contracts - whether they are laws or not is irrelevant - that reduce the production. And buying less may be a drop in the ocean because we do *some form of social contract* in the right direction, with many drops in the ocean having some weigth. But our main institution to create general social contracts - so called laws - is institutional politics. So yes, it is a question of legislation for the most part. I think that this line of reasoning is an immense copout. Unless you are emperor of the world, you don't have the power to completely change everything everyone does. Everyone has limited power. If you find an issue important, do what is in your power to help alleviate it, and encourage other to do so. Instead, you choose to find some other person who is responsible ("the capitalists"), and wallow in your inability to affect change at the level as those, and at their perceived inaction. So you can feel better because you have identified the guilty party, and it is not you, and don't actually have to change any of your behaviors. You chose the behavior that requires the least effort of you, instead of one that has a possibly larger effect on the whole. You could choose not to ride a car. You could choose to consume less stuff. You could choose to consume different stuff that has less of an effect. But that would require that you actually do something and change something about yourself, instead of pointing at someone else and say "it is their fault". Yes, you will not solve climate change on your own. But you could choose to do things that are within your power to try to have an effect. Stating that you "do not believe in market forces" is once again a copout to enable you to consume whatever you like without having to consider the ethical ramifications of anything, because you can not change the supply chain that led to that product, because it is all in the past. That is easy. Harder would be to actually think about what you consume, and possibly change your behavior. Which would effect the world, because market forces do actually exist, and stuff that is bought less will also be produced less in the future, while stuff that is bought more will be produced more. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:30 Big J wrote: Well, eating the cattle makes it go away. An eaten cattle cannot fart. But you are right, since I don't make the decision to kill it - and it really is killing the cattle, not eating the cattle which helps -, my eating doesn't improve the status quo. Doesn't make it worse though either. But it does, and that is because of capitalism. When you go out and buy beef the people producing that beef get rewarded for raising cattle and polluting the environment. Whenever you give someone money that has hidden ecological cost in their production you are at fault, too. It's not always easy to see but meat is a very good example of the collective choosing luxury over reason in the western world. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:41 Simberto wrote: I think that this line of reasoning is an immense copout. Unless you are emperor of the world, you don't have the power to completely change everything everyone does. Everyone has limited power. If you find an issue important, do what is in your power to help alleviate it, and encourage other to do so. I'll stop here, because you are completely right at this. What you have to understand is that I think in property and distribution. Property is the written, or unwritten + Show Spoiler + what matters is that it is lived by and executed There was never and will never be a society without property and most single instances of property will always be exclusive or shared between only very few beings. Collective property is bullshit, because the question of "who decides" is unsolvable unless the decision is somewhat mutually shared to begin with. The one and only social question therefore is, who controls what and for what reason. That is the question of distribution. The Soviet Union and its central planning was bullshit, because regardless what they called it, Stalin and a few party members were the factual property owners in the Soviet Union. The people of the Soviet Union had a shitty life because the Soviet leaders were so fucking rich that the only thing they cared for was having the same number of nukes as the US, spending 25% of all economical production on it and limiting all other innovation and competition processes. You wouldn't say, that in the Soviet Union the consumption choices of the people really mattered, would you? The key to changing that was to change the distribution away from a society in which a few superrich party leaders controlled everything (=everything is their property). So why would it be any different in capitalism if the distribution was the same? Thankfully it still isn't, the top few percent "only" control like 50% of the property in the West and not like the over 90% that was controlled by the communist party in russia. But it raises the same question, if a few have such overproportional control, why would you expect someone who owns a few thousand Euros at most to have the weight to actually do something? The distribution function is not an equal distribution. It isn't even a linear distribution, it is quite exponential. If that is the social market weight of control over things we accept, than that is also the social responsibility we have to impose. And sure, we can make general laws that limit private property activities. But if they don't hit everyone according to their share, but rather they are like "consumers should buy less, consumers should pay higher taxes, every form of production capital is excluded" then you are only hitting a small share and you will only make a small impact. About everything else you write: I don't have a car, I don't eat a lot of meat, I'm living a rather minimal livestyle, I heat much less than the average, I donate for initiatives and I vote Greens. The only thing I do way too much is flying, which is partly due to work and I pay much more compensations than they tell you to for that. (not that it matters, the CO2 is produced either way and the "compensations" can be made either way, whether you fly or not) I am doing WAY more than most other people. But my part is way too small to matter, and so is almost everyone elses, except for the upper few percent and the politicians. We are not making an impact here by putting our consumption power against that of investors. | ||
| ||
