[umadon]

"the government arrests people and seizes factories that violate these ecological goals"

Why isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't people who ignore ecological laws be punished? And anyway, how do you propose to fix climate change without massive, centralized planning, including punishment of those who subvert such a fix for personal gain?

Also, in your link, the plants are closed, not seized.

[siffland]

"the government arrests people and seizes factories that violate these ecological goals"

But near human slavery in factories with working commiting suicide, that does not violate any goals.

So it says greener today than 20 years ago. How Green were they in say 1960 and 1970 and 1980, etc. I take it since the article says 20 years, then 30 years ago the space was a lot greener before then?

Yes the US needs to pick up on green space, but remeber when you look at the map the south west (Cali to Texas, is not exactly good for trees.

[baddox]

I don’t understand. Why would central planning be required to fix climate change? How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer externalities?

I don’t see any reason to turn to central planning, unless one just uses that term to refer to any regulations involving the economy.

[davidwitt415]

One example when I was there in March: I saw no 2-stroke ICE scooters, everybody is riding electric scooters. AFAIK, it was a decree by the central govt, and a very effective change since 2-strokes are notorious polluters.

[magnamerc]

I think a lot of right wingers in North America would say that regulations such as taxing carbon, or providing government incentives to solar or wind farms would be considered a socialist centrally planned catastrophe. I mean, that's what the 'Green New Deal' is all about, and apparently American right wing nuts think that's communism.

[jolfdb]

The Green New Deal is a mishmash of left wing talking points, not a coherent proposal.

[Dirlewanger]

It may unfortunately be the only way. We live in a capitalist society where the only reason any sort of enterprise occurs is because there's a profit to be made. The US government just doesn't give a shit to correct negative externalities via smart regulation because it's in bed with all the big actors in most industries.

[baddox]

I don’t quite understand the argument. Since the US government is in bed with big industry, it should take over the entire economy instead of regulate those big industries?

[24gttghh]

>How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no longer externalities?

There will still be externalities, but they would be properly priced in and accountable.

[umadon]

I don't see the US government (for one) having the teeth or even really desire to enforce any regulations absent a huge change.

[ixtli]

Oh I hoped it was clear that I think it's a very, very good thing that we should do here. Also v good point, they are closed. (However I would bet that they'll be reopened under new management. Definitely my western bias saying 'seized.')

[ixtli]

I edited my comment to say closed.

[ForHackernews]

> And anyway, how do you propose to fix climate change without massive, centralized planning, including punishment of those who subvert such a fix for personal gain?

Tax tax tax. Price in the cost of externalities and let the market sort it out. Market forces allow society-wide coordination without heavy-handed central planing.

Obviously you'll still need to prosecute tax cheats.