[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.