What's interesting is that we already know it's going to result in economic contraction, loss of profits, and general instability in the financial sphere. So we already know that tacking it will be profitable in the long run versus the alternative.
Perhaps the conversation needs to center on how to factor the long view into capitalism. Because in my view it is pretty shit at that, with often short term profits favoured over long term and the effects of that being felt long term.
Right now our intervention option looks like direct intervention to make things less profitable in the near term, and then we run into the problem of democracy also favouring short-term popularity over long-term stewardship and the immediate pains it bring to voters.
Every politician who has attempted or done this has paid a heavy political price. We won't do enough to stop this problem until hundreds of thousands are forced to find new homes, at which point we'll have our hands full with the immediate problems we've caused by this.
It is not about economic systems, governments, or corporations. People are making choices that do not line up with the bigger things they say they want. Frankly I am getting tired of people with their SUVs, new phones, new computers, plastic everything, and huge homes bitching at me because I am "releasing carbon" when I burn wood. Don't even get me started on the people who bitch about my Nissan versa being gas powered instead of their clean battery powered alternative (Batteries, vehicle electronics, weight, tire size, and the source of their clean energy is my bitch here). People just need to shut the fuck up, live a frugal life and this problem with mitigate itself.
The carbon that has been released into the atmosphere from oil is here to stay. I am not even sure we should go looking for some energy guzzling carbon sink because we really need to give the earth time to breath and settle into the ecosystem that exists today. The earth will heal itself and balance will be restored but we can never go back to pre-industrial revolution levels of carbon.
The last big expansion of wind and solar from a percentage growth perspective happened when oil was hitting 100 USD. We shouldn't discount how efficient markets are at allocating resources. If expenditures into oil (something like 6bn USD per day) went to wind and solar, then much would change.
Government subsidies targeted at technologies perceived to be green could potentially be taking resources away from other energy innovations. In the end, some of those innovations might have resulted in greener energy.
I'm a socialist, but I hate this meme on the left. We simply do not have time to build socialism before tackling climate change, especially with the recent crushing defeats the left has suffered in Western countries. We have to do this under capitalism, or we will not be able to do it at all.
That isnt the only alternative. A state run free market like china would actually be really useful for this global problem, if of course climate change was the priority for the government.
lack of personal freedom and ease of abuse probably make this a terrible choice, but it would without a doubt be better for climate change than currently
> A state run free market like china would actually be really useful for this global problem, if of course climate change was the priority for the government.
The cure suggested here is worse than the disease.
And I'm not entirely sure. Is authoritarian rule worse than billions starving to death, with collapse of the ecosystem?
All the enlightenment ideas fall apart when we actually reach the limit of the earths resources, and can potentially cause our own extinction along with the rest of the animal kingdom
The balance is between (a) effectively addressing an issue & (b) empowering government and risking it abuse its power.
Most long-lived democracies appear to have optimized to mitigate the risk of the second, over the long run, but at the cost of limiting the first.
One thinks the Roman Republic had a pretty good thing going politically... but declaring a temporary dictator in times of crisis only worked until it didn't.
Is it capitalism, or is it our current regime?
I'm not sure that capitalism itself demands eternal growth, or that pollution not be taken into account.
Capitalism doesn't force us to continue to burn fossil fuels. We could impose massive fines or taxes against any greenhouse gas emitter, but we lack social will.
It can only be done under Capitalism, since we're at the point where drastically reducing CO2 is woefully insufficient to curb global warming in the next 50-100 years. We need technological innovation to cool the planet.