A less carbon intense life is possible, but much easier without the fear of a needy tomorrow...the consumer may be the biggest cause of so much CO2, but like in "Grapes of Wrath" when you are pushed into a place where you can't grow what you need, can't stay in a place for free so have to go out and work to buy your food and then have too much money so you buy useless stuff....also from that book (prescient in today's awaited ecological collapse) the idea that fruit prices were so low they built factories to put them in cans...to conclude imo the lifestyle that comes from the "western" world's slave mentality to work and growth is the main cause of climate change...that and the overabundance of never ending more printed money...
1) the word “tax”
In carbon-tax terrifies people, especially in America. So we get a tragedy of the commons situation with the cost of carbon made into an externality.
2) massive FUD and manipulation of media and environmental efforts to stop awareness of climate change for decades.
Fox News destroyed scientists on TV to discredit global warming.
People have made this happen, and they have gleefully lived without any repercussions - which is why the model has been copied around the world.
Hilariously the oil firms are rebranding themselves as eco firms.
> 1) the word “tax” In carbon-tax terrifies people, especially in America. So we get a tragedy of the commons situation with the cost of carbon made into an externality.
Reducing their quality of life and expectations is what terrifies people. People want their vacations to Tahiti, their SUV, their detached single family homes with backyards and front yards, more children etc.
People know the only way out of this is to reduce consumption - of everything. But obviously few want to, especially when they don’t believe others will chip in and reduce also.
Which is a non sequitur, peoples quality of life was much worse with the loss of breathable air, drinkable water or houses lost to wildfires (Jan 2019 Australia for example). Its not like people want a high quality of life which excludes those things.
Your final point is describing a collective action problem, but that is solved by simply exposing the full cost of a goods to people.
That is what markets do, very very well. Expose costs via pricing, and let people respond to that information.
If your skin care product packaged by X company is 30% more expensive because its cost of carbon is included, then people will buy the less expensive option and go on their merry way.
>Which is a non sequitur, peoples quality of life was much worse with the loss of breathable air, drinkable water or houses lost to wildfires (Jan 2019 Australia for example). Its not like people want a high quality of life which excludes those things.
“People” meaning as a whole, with sufficient cooperation to enact political change, on a global level, such that the cost of pollution can be priced into products.
But that pricing in will also cause the cost of everything we use to go up, causing a decrease in the amount of consumption (which is the intended effect), but that is an immediate and easily visible “loss” to people.
> But obviously few want to, especially when they don’t believe others will chip in and reduce also.
That last part there is very important. I feel much like this, me personally going ascetic, while all my fellow humans don't give a damn, doesn't help anything. This needs to come from the top, the politicians, with rules, regulations, fees and fines. Thus, I vote for the greenest and most ascetic party there is. But I have little hope left.
Many pushing a carbon tax have far too high an expectation of how the impact of a tax would fall. Without a lot of other systemic changes and programs implemented in concert with a carbon tax, the market would allocate much like it it has as already - only optimizing profit with a carbon constraint without regard to anything else - likely increasing inequality.
Interesting idea. It reminds me of the fact I'd like to work full time on climate breakdown, but don't because those jobs pay a lot less. After all, trying to buy a house!
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to me, the other bidder would _also_ prefer to work doing good in the world, but takes the highest paying job instead, so they can outbid me.
And that house is what is causing the climate breakdown in the first place, since it is a detached single family home with a garage, reducing population density and magnifying the amount of energy required to push all the mass people want to live (water, sewer, gas, people, groceries, vehicles, trash, etc).
Of course, although I'm assuming you meant that as a rebuttal? Keep in mind that output does not always need to be physical. In fact, the history of capitalism shows that growth is coupled with more people doing less physical work and that countries with greater wealth and resources (e.g. the ability to make more stuff more efficiently) will move towards a service oriented economy.
Yes, I agree that the more advanced an economy gets the less coupled GDP is to physical labor. But efficiency is not a 1:1 relationship with GDP unless the work input is equal. Meaning, just because there is an increase in efficiency does not guarantee there is an increase in productivity so efficiency shouldn’t be used as a perfect corollary to GDP, just one aspect that helps drive it.
It’s like saying “my per hour pay rate went up” and assuming your annual take has also increased. That’s only true if your total hours didn’t drop enough to erode those rate gains.
To your point, GDP and efficiency are both increasing but hours per worker are generally decreasing.
