• aeternum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    or, and i know this is an outlandish idea, we could eat plants instead of animals.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agriculture at least in the United States makes up like 12% of total emissions. Land use overall sinks like 12% of carbon as well.

          The only way we put a massive dent in global warming is if we tax carbon and in the use of fossil fuels. All of this eating meat shit is a distraction.

          • float@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Does taxed carbon do less damage to the environment? My guess would be that the only thing that would happen are increased consumer prices. Wealthy people simply pay their “pollution fee” and keep going.

            • bioemerl@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Does taxed carbon do less damage to the environment

              Just put your ignorance on a big billboard for us.

              A tax on carbon, administered properly, is the most effective single way to get people to reduce their carbon usage over time by increasing the cost of polluting.

              You start with it fairly low, and you crank it up over the years such that businesses and other groups are encouraged to move away from carbon wherever possible in order to save money, because the carpet is more expensive than non-carbon alternatives.

              The point is to make a gallon of gas so expensive that’s someone chooses to carpool or drive a bike or move closer to where they work. So yeah it’s going to increase consumer prices, but that’s what you have to do in order to reduce carbon emissions. Our lifestyle is where the carbon emissions are coming from.

              No other scheme is as effective and as simple as a ramping carbon tax. It’s very easy to tax carbon at its origin, the oil wells and ports. And the market ensures that all prices you apply at the oil well slowly filter down through the economy and impact areas that use more fossil fuels more thanks to the increased costs.

              And then with a revenue neutral carbon tax, You can make it so that there is near zero net impact on people’s well-being, short of the fact that people who pollute and emit more carbon will get less money back relative to their increase in cost.

              • float@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Companies are the biggest polluters. And production of products with high CO2 footprint would simply move to countries that don’t care. That’s what happens with most environmental or financial regulation. What makes you think a carbon tax would be different? Imho a system that is based on unlimited exponential growth is the problem.

                • bioemerl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Companies are the biggest polluters. And production of products with high CO2 footprint would simply move to countries that don’t care

                  Then you apply import taxes. Any restriction we take on carbon will have that effect.

                  Imho a system that is based on unlimited exponential growth is the problem.

                  Our current existence is unsustainable. If we stop growing we will snuff ourselves out. The only way out through shrinking would be a thanos style culling.

                  The only way forward is forward.

                  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Then you apply import taxes. Any restriction we take on carbon will have that effect.

                    Every country now has to measure the carbon output of factories in every other country in order to correctly impose import taxes on carbon. Either that, or just blanket raise import taxes, which would strangle any country that is isn’t large and developed enough to at least theoretically reach self-sufficiency, which none currently are in practice. This is not realistic or sustainable. Stop trying to tax the problem away. The invisible hand of the free market is a myth. Real problems require real hands to fix them.

                    Our current existence is unsustainable. If we stop growing we will snuff ourselves out. The only way out through shrinking would be a thanos style culling. The only way forward is forward.

                    This is capitalist jibber-jabber. There is no reason we can’t slow down on the non-essential overconsumption rampant in modern society, and still be able to efficiently manage and redirect those resources and labor towards necessities in a more sustainable way. We have way more than enough resources to live in comfort and still be sustainable. “Yolo, floor it” is not a sane policy.

                  • float@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Import taxes on carbon would only work if we could track the carbon along the supply chain. Don’t get me wrong, we’re on the same side basically I’m just pessimistic that it’ll be that easy. Having said that, I have to admin that I don’t have any idea about how to fix that.