Political rant

[vonstrassburg]

Since I've gotten into another political s**tfight, here's where I stand on such issues in case anyone's interested:

• Climate change is real, it's here, and it's happening now.  There may be a lot of noise in the press saying "oh but wait some climate scientists think it's not all bad" and "there's this guy in Milwaukee who reckons that it's all

Comments

[omnot]

"A global ETS, with or without a carbon tax, is a very good thing. It means that farmer A can be in Ecuador or Brazil, while coal power station B is in China, and suddenly there's a big incentive to stop chopping rainforests down. Huge win for everyone (except B who can probably afford it anyway)"

The last section, in brackets, is where you can get in trouble. Because "B" can afford it by charging more for their products/services. Which means that the consumer pays the cost of maintaining the environment, and we can't have that, can we?

I mean, it's perfectly acceptable that where the manufacture of a product incurs a cost for disposing of liquid waste such that it does not foul the local waterways or the ocean, that cost should be factored in to the price of the product to consumers.

But where the manufacture of a product would incur costs for disposing of gaseous wastes in such a way that they do not foul the global atmosphere, it is just wrong that the end-user be expected to pay that cost.

It's outrageous to suggest that manufacturers would have to give one whit about what their industry puts into the atmosphere, and clearly certain to send them to the wall if they are forced to do so. All those jobs! All those people out of work! Won't somebody think of the children!!

(I hope it is clear that I am being sarcastic)

[vonstrassburg]

Yes, it's clear you're being sarcastic. It's not clear why, but whatever floats your boat.

[omnot]

Why?

Because when someone (like you) says something like "company B can afford it" it is quickly pounced on by anti-carbon-price people who howl that the additional cost of production will be passed on to consumers.

That every other aspect of the cost of production is already passed on to consumers seems to be lost on them, and they carry on about the unacceptable injustice and damage to the economy.

So it is far more productive to say "consumers will have to afford this cost which will be some tiny percentage of the overall cost of the product/service". Anti-carbon-price people will still argue, but at least the argument will be over an actual point of contention: that people bloody well should pay the "real" cost of the things we consume, and that we've been getting away without doing so to whatever extent thus far does not mean there isn't a (demonstrably fatal) cost.