Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Climate change and government "size"

sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 1:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
By size here I mean the degree to which the state apparatus, whose primary goal is simply the representation of the "democratic" average will of the people, is directly or indirectly tied to any centralised, private unit with its own separate profit motives. For example, a society has a very large government when the general structure of that society (its "state" in the broadest sense) is determined by a small cartel or group.

The one thing which most on any side of the debate about climate change agree on, is that the positions of climate change advocates, if right about things like the scale of the problem, involve widespread and somewhat extreme action as the only viable solution. The main reason this issue has been strongly correlated with a "powerful state" ideology is just this intuition - that there is no way to directly align the individual profit interest of any firm in the competitive marketplace with the courses of action necessary to address this problem. In this sense, climate change is an issue implicit in which is the notion of a "pure externality" - that is, something which, while nevertheless an absolute utility to the survival of the human race in the long term, cannot be assimilated to the incentive distributions of a profit directed corporation.

Ironically, this argument is equally applicable to the government itself, in that case in which Plutocratic regimes reach a sufficient degree of expansion and elaboration. A Plutocratic government is absolutely immune to any widespread public action by which some externality-directed policy such as climate change could gain traction, since the incentives involved in the competition for short term leverage are the determinants of action which are always prioritised ultimately. In this system, the dominant Plutocratic power will always "buy" the assent of its people with concessions involving climate policy, only to the degree that they are compatible with its directly economic interests. The concessions to the democratic will are means by which the elite's ultimate profit incentives are bought. As such, then, no "pure externality" such as the realistic price of any substantial dent in climate trends can fit within the incentive distributions of such a scheme. The actions which can be taken are necessarily only ever token, and not substantive, gestures in the direction of an issue, and nowhere near the sort of fundamental transformations which the climate science advocates themselves say are necessary.

Thus, it is this economic disequilibrium, allowing a single economic entity to gain absolute leverage over the democratic process of decision making, which must be remedied first and foremost, if the logic of the climate advocates is to be believed - by their own standard. Such an advocate who nevertheless fights for small, piecemeal policy changes which nevertheless leave the status quo intact, over changes which attempt to directly extract the Plutocratic influence from government at is core, are not much advocates for a real solution to this problem whatsoever. These kinds of transformation can only supply enough change to satiate the masses, but never to cure their illness.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 7:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I mean, climate activists are always talking about getting money out of politics and limiting the influence of oil lobbyists on congress, and how are current climate policies don't come close to solving the problem. Like I doubt Naomi Klein would disagree with anything you said.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 8:54:41 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 7:36:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I mean, climate activists are always talking about getting money out of politics and limiting the influence of oil lobbyists on congress, and how are current climate policies don't come close to solving the problem. Like I doubt Naomi Klein would disagree with anything you said.

Climate control requires limiting the size of human populations first.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 1:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/30/2016 8:54:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2016 7:36:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I mean, climate activists are always talking about getting money out of politics and limiting the influence of oil lobbyists on congress, and how are current climate policies don't come close to solving the problem. Like I doubt Naomi Klein would disagree with anything you said.

Climate control requires limiting the size of human populations first.

Reducing the risk of mass deaths requires limiting population. How many do you think technology and earth can support? 10 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion?

Secondly, climate control as far as limiting the variation of temp change may not be beyond our control. More info and understanding is required as well as cheap technology.

OP is right though as profit interests don't align with solving the issue. Taxation and high risk investments can be used to change the equations.

Despite Rush Limbaugh and conservatives getting their knickers in a twist about Solyndra that gov program to date has a loss ratio of 2 percent, has made the gov money, advanced technology and helped advance commercial markets for clean power.

Venture funding brings much investment in new technology and new companies. While clean energy tech companies is still very risky the US gov is proving it can be profitable.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 5:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/30/2016 1:44:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 8:54:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2016 7:36:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I mean, climate activists are always talking about getting money out of politics and limiting the influence of oil lobbyists on congress, and how are current climate policies don't come close to solving the problem. Like I doubt Naomi Klein would disagree with anything you said.

Climate control requires limiting the size of human populations first.

Reducing the risk of mass deaths requires limiting population. How many do you think technology and earth can support? 10 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion?

We don't have the technology now to repair the consumption damage of the current population level.
Secondly, climate control as far as limiting the variation of temp change may not be beyond our control. More info and understanding is required as well as cheap technology.

Again, we don't have it yet.
OP is right though as profit interests don't align with solving the issue. Taxation and high risk investments can be used to change the equations.

Or lawsuits.
Despite Rush Limbaugh and conservatives getting their knickers in a twist about Solyndra that gov program to date has a loss ratio of 2 percent, has made the gov money, advanced technology and helped advance commercial markets for clean power.

It takes an assload of fossil fuels to manufacture those panels.
Venture funding brings much investment in new technology and new companies. While clean energy tech companies is still very risky the US gov is proving it can be profitable.
People won't invest if they think the government subsidies might run out. This is a really bad presidential cycle for the subsidy investor.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/30/2016 5:08:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/30/2016 1:44:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 8:54:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2016 7:36:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I mean, climate activists are always talking about getting money out of politics and limiting the influence of oil lobbyists on congress, and how are current climate policies don't come close to solving the problem. Like I doubt Naomi Klein would disagree with anything you said.

Climate control requires limiting the size of human populations first.

Reducing the risk of mass deaths requires limiting population. How many do you think technology and earth can support? 10 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion?

We don't have the technology now to repair the consumption damage of the current population level.
Secondly, climate control as far as limiting the variation of temp change may not be beyond our control. More info and understanding is required as well as cheap technology.

Again, we don't have it yet.
OP is right though as profit interests don't align with solving the issue. Taxation and high risk investments can be used to change the equations.

Or lawsuits.
Despite Rush Limbaugh and conservatives getting their knickers in a twist about Solyndra that gov program to date has a loss ratio of 2 percent, has made the gov money, advanced technology and helped advance commercial markets for clean power.

It takes an assload of fossil fuels to manufacture those panels.
Venture funding brings much investment in new technology and new companies. While clean energy tech companies is still very risky the US gov is proving it can be profitable.
People won't invest if they think the government subsidies might run out. This is a really bad presidential cycle for the subsidy investor.

That is why the gov has gotten involved. Tesla who benefitted from gov loans not only paid them back early, but continues on with their vision of a battery pack in every house.

This is a great cycle to invest in due to the tremendous corporate welfare give away that is about to happen. Just need to be prepared to get out before the bubble bursts.

You see gov subsidies whether are in the form of tax breaks or low interest loans are still subsidies. In fact the WTO just ruled against the US and Boeing due to the tax breaks that were given Boeing.