|
That guy lives in a fantasy world. Back in the 2010s (going by memory here) a study commissioned by the UK government estimated the optimal carbon tax (ie one sure to contain warming to +2°C) to be at around 180$/kg. There is no way to implement the sort of carbon tax we would need now (as there wasn't any way to implement the previous one) without a radical restructuring of our entire economies, massive state intervention to decarbonize infrastructure, reinvent urban planning at its core and so on, and there is 0% chance of markets doing that for us. Also, the paragraph on zoning is some of the stupidest poo poo I have ever read on the topic. It is a possibly stupider version of volumetric rights, which loving failed 20 years ago. Zoning regulation makes no sense without adherence to a global plan, and expansion of affordable housing does not happen under market terms, at the very least not without significant annual wage growth trends (not happening for the past 30 or so years), unless you want slums to explode in the near future. You need citywide regulatory planning and heavy public investment into precisely the type of housing that is unprofitable for the market to provide. Housing prices are like 99% due to 'bundled' characteristics (access to transport infrastructure, distance from other important services and the center, access to green etc) which are geographically determined. You can increase density, but base pricing will stay the same because of the monopolistic nature of land supply and use. In some cases, furthermore, high pricing is the exact reason the housing in question is desirable, rendering the proposal of more poor residents moving in a non-starter, so yeah good luck YIMBYing that poo poo. There are tons of stories of 'white flight' for instance in the US when poor (and black) residents moved somewhere, and all the richer middle class dudes immediately gently caress off somewhere else. You can turn Soho into 'projects' and guess what, that kills Soho as it is, upper class residents loving hate when the poor move in and their property depreciates. There is no way to negotiate this in the individual way this guy proposes unless you plan on making the poor pay for the loss in property value, assuming the richer residents are even willing to accept it. Expanding land supply is also loving worthless without providing adequate infrastructure and services, and that poo poo doesn't happen without public intervention and planning. Source: the past 20 years of 'private procurement' affordable housing in Italy. I'm growing ever more convinced that liberals just don't inhabit the same reality as the rest of us do.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Aren’t emissions falling in much of the developed world, and in particular where you have carbon taxes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Aren’t emissions falling in much of the developed world, and in particular where you have carbon taxes? Yep. Emissions have instead been exported abroad, primarily into china, where we get to produce even more poo poo for us because labour is also cheaper. This is the neoliberal world order. If you take people's co2 actual footprint, we're still steaming ahead. We're just not counting roughly 40-50% of it because it happens abroad. e: china recently decided they want to be carbon neutral by 2060 at the latest, which is a great goal to have, but the question is, will they be able to without trashing their export economy? if poo poo from china starts being too expensive for the consumer driven western markets, we'll just find someone who doesn't care about emissions instead Truga fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
Allow me to stress this, the guy wants streets to self-assign density, and wants the new residents to pay for the externalities of them moving in there. This will fix housing being largely unaffordable because e: to understand just how loving stupid that is, having to internalize the 'externality' of you moving somewhere means the entry level price is ultimately the same, even if the total cost of the property were for some reason smaller. So yeah, good luck with that. mortons stork fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:48
|
|
|
Im not sure “the emissions are now coming from China” is all that convincing of an argument in favor of centralized authoritarian economics to save the climate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Im not sure “the emissions are now coming from China” is all that convincing of an argument in favor of centralized authoritarian economics to save the climate. Unfortunately for you it also doesn't make a case for market economies under technocratic governance, as technocratic solutions to the problem so far consist of creative accounting to ensure the planet boils but the pollution causing it to boil will have been subcontracted to poorer countries. Climate change, much like Covid, remains an issue despite all the creative accounting emmployed in making it look not so bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:Unfortunately for you it also doesn't make a case for market economies under technocratic governance, as technocratic solutions to the problem so far consist of creative accounting to ensure the planet boils but the pollution causing it to boil will have been subcontracted to poorer countries. Climate change, much like Covid, remains an issue despite all the creative accounting emmployed in making it look not so bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Im not sure “the emissions are now coming from China” is all that convincing of an argument in favor of centralized authoritarian economics to save the climate. Are you saying that China being an authoritarian state is an argument against enacting environmental regulations in Europe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And carbon taxes - higher than they are before, and border adjusted, to prevent the problem of outsourcing pollution - seem like a most promising solution, at least what the economics are concerned. The carbon taxes required not to make Earth uninhabitable for most by the end of the century will literally kill the oil, car, plastics industries overnight, plus countless others which are part of their chain. Border adjusted taxes will also kill the global supply chains we rely on for most of our goods. Anything less and we'll get the worst of both worlds. There is no way to save the Earth, as the guy proposes, without greatly expanding the role of the state, due to having to manage an abrupt, extreme shift in our underlying economic structure. I mean, we could just instantly kill all our economies and degenerate into Somalia I guess if that's what you prefer. mortons stork fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
I mean, since we're talking about the stupid article here let's start at the begining with china:quote:2. Support for immigration because migration is simultaneously the best tool we have for allowing talented people to make the most of their abilities and the best tool we have for reducing extreme poverty in the short- and medium-run. Liberal democracies are extremely good at absorbing and integrating immigrants, and most people’s objection to immigration is on the mistaken belief that immigrants lower native wages or job opportunities. this is a big loving load of bollocks. Over 90% of the "reduction of poverty" in the last ~40 years has been due to china being able to industrialize by "selling out" and giving their people access to services an industrialized society can provide because they're claiming to be commies. This isn't usually mentioned in bullshit capitalist/liberal propaganda articles about "pulling people from poverty" like the one above for obvious reasons, tho. China has, in industralizing, been able to secure a more... decent? place in the world hierarchy than they were in the mid 1900s. What they have now is the ability to move to where they turn that industrial power into cleaner but more expensive ways of life. It's not the best way to keep the world from climate disaster, but I'd find it hard to argue it wasn't the best way to get china industrialized in the neoliberal world they were dealt. Meanwhile, we've been in that place since the 60s at the latest, and basically haven't done poo poo. For example, in the last 20 years, china built more rail infrastructure than the entire rest of the world combined. This is just one of the things that are absolute ground work that needs to be done everywhere, yesterday not tomorrow, if we want to begin saving the planet, because road traffic is loving murder for the environment. Yet, apparently, only the "centralized authoritarian economics" are able to do this even remotely on the scale needed. e: and just to be clear, this isn't some kind of singing praise, even china is doing *way less than required, and still too late*, the giant difference is only that they're doing things everyone should be but aren't, and from what i can tell, to a pretty big extent of their ability within the current world order lol Truga fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And carbon taxes - higher than they are before, and border adjusted, to prevent the problem of outsourcing pollution - seem like a most promising solution, at least what the economics are concerned. How do you presume this "border adjusting" would work when most of the externalities we'd have to adjust for are being exported to states we have literally no administrative power over?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
https://www.carbonmap.org/ Just lol at the services ajusted consumption. One of the things why some people support goverment intervention is that the private sector has done about jack and poo poo to curb emissions, except exporting the manufacturing base and polution. One of the few things that can actually put a small dent was regulating cargo ship fuel and that was a loving 15 year fight.and it still sucks! Remeber the green IT initiative a few years ago, whole lot of good that did when we started building gently caress off data centers everywhere, or when bitcoiners where burning through the equivalent energy of powering ireland. too bad you cant just export climate change and its consequences! We sure as hell trying though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
Svensken posted:How do you presume this "border adjusting" would work when most of the externalities we'd have to adjust for are being exported to states we have literally no administrative power over?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Let's dig up Charlesmaigne, maybe he has some ideas Sure, by the well-known Simpson's exception, you're allowed one German. But why him? At least pick, like, one of the relatively nice ones, dunno, Lessing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Svensken posted:How do you presume this "border adjusting" would work when most of the externalities we'd have to adjust for are being exported to states we have literally no administrative power over? We could start by cutting US in-country emissions, which currently stand at over 2.5 times those of China on per capita basis. And maybe then we can look at the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:We could start by cutting US in-country emissions, which currently stand at over 2.5 times those of China on per capita basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Also this IS the EU thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Well it's still higher in the EU on average than in China, albeit not by such an insane amount. My entire point was that the Chinese as people produce far less in the way of emissions (if more concentrated given the landmass and population) than Americans, even ignoring whatever rules about imported emissions which might account for 30% if we're being charitable and would be a very difficult fight to have. And per-capita emissions is the whole loving point, how else are you going to compare emissions between countries with wildly differing population. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
It makes sense to compare per capita, but the aim of politics (and prayers) should not be lower per capita emissions for the worst polluters, but lower emissions. Let’s say Monaco and Taiwan have ultra high emissions part capita - ok, but India and the US and Mexico and China and India, and of course the EU, are what counts!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Edit: wrong thread
Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Sep 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
local emissions cuts are obviously necessary to some extent, but the exporting of emissions really is a problem in contexts like this it's a bit of a parallel to the quota trading debate of yore - there's a real problem in that what looks like effective action might very well not be, and once the accounting gets complicated enough it's very hard to assign responsibility
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
And not just the exporting of emissions that’s already playing out, but that’s gonna play out in the future - as more nations develop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:Sure, by the well-known Simpson's exception, you're allowed one German. But why him? At least pick, like, one of the relatively nice ones, dunno, Lessing? Don't worry, as soon as you dig up Charlemagne, the French will claim he was French, so you're allowed one extra Lessing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Don't worry, as soon as you dig up Charlemagne, the French will claim he was French, so you're allowed one extra Lessing. Charlemagne is French. If you want a German, dig up Karl der Grosse instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
Carolus Magnus corpse is in a gaudy golden coffin sitting in an elevated glass box in the cathedral in Aachen, no "digging up" required:
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Maybe we can just cut the body in half.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
He was born in Nijmegen, so clearly Dutch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 13:46
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Maybe we can just cut the body in half. OK, Solomon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
Osmosisch posted:OK, Solomon. I mean, he's dead. (It's me, I'm the false mother in the story)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:He was born in Nijmegen, so clearly Dutch. As far as I recall they would have used "Thiudisk" back then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:He was born in Nijmegen, so clearly Dutch. Excuse me I think you mean Nimwegen
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
That's Novomagus for you
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
Ah yes, Carlomagno, famous ruler of Spain born in Nueva Magunas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Ah yes, Carlomagno, famous ruler of Spain born in Nueva Magunas. Still better than the English version, Big Chuck, born in Nutmeg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
13 years prison for Golden Dawn leader. gently caress the loving fascist forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 14:07
|
|
|
Hey, we'd like to get an IK for this thread. If you have nominations, please PM them to a D&D mod or, if you don't have pms, join the discord server linked in the rules thread and pm us there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Hey, we'd like to get an IK for this thread. If you have nominations, please PM them to a D&D mod or, if you don't have pms, join the discord server linked in the rules thread and pm us there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You have to first select one for each other Eurothread, then those IKs will choose the IK for this thread. Nomination goes through comitology first, Zaurg ends up being nominated IK. Ends up being an absentee IK and the mod's lobby decides everything for him. (Serious: I get the concept bit what does IK stand for?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You have to first select one for each other Eurothread, then those IKs will choose the IK for this thread. I'll make the Slovenian politics thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You have to first select one for each other Eurothread, then those IKs will choose the IK for this thread. The Belgian thread will not vote for any IK applicant, because the Walloon and the Flemish posters will disagree on who they want. The German speaking Belgians will be ignored as is proper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:07
|
|
