Ocasio-Cortez proposes a 70% tax on the most wealthy to pay for a "Green New Deal".

[His Divine Shadow]

a 2001 study in Finland showed that the people in the Helsinki Metropolitan area had per capita 30% higher CO2 footprints, yes even apartment dwellers. Once you factor in all the impact from all the services city people usually consume from common areas, then their footprints increase, every restaurant, every mall, service and product has an impact on the environment and it's had a bigger impact than assumed. Also urban dwellers fly much more than their poorer rural counter parts. A followup study showed than with equal income, i.e. rich rural people had equal footprints to city dwellers, due to flying abroad more often and consuming more. But still, equal, that's mainly because there is less access to consumption hotspots, even rich people only shop once a week or every other week just so they don't have to drive to the store every day.... That's a lot less bad than we have been led to believe. But when you think about it, I read in some UN report that 60-80% of the worlds carbon footprint is generated from or around the biggest urban areas of the world.

Perhaps people need to consume less goods and services, buy less gadgets, stop eating in restaurants, etc. But what will you live for then? What will fill the empty hole inside?

[Jub]

At least some of that could be fixed with cleaner energy sources, though it's unlikely that Finland which is already very green would cut much via that method. I'm actually curious how those figures gathered from Helsinki would look for other nations and other large metropolitan areas.

Do energy generation and car usage in a place like the US skew those numbers? If so in which direction? Which goods and services accessed by city dwellers use the most power? Where can we easily save emissions while keeping the quality of life high?

[His Divine Shadow]

2001 should be 2011.

[K. A. Pital]

Ban or penalize cars with low emission standards and soon you leave people little choice but to buy replacement vehicles. The question is, really, should it be done, not whether it can or cannot be done.

Cool. Take cars from poor people.

We have already done this by enforcing stringent emissions standards and making obsolete, but still good-to-go cars, effectively unusable in many territories.

It is brutal, but if one believes vehicles are a major component of emissions driving climate change (and they are), then I am sure you have a good explanation on why people are entitled to cars, but millions of Third World coastal area inhabitants must literally lose their lives to supertyphoons?..

I am sorry to not have an easy answer for you. Electric vehicles are a rich plaything, true enough, but the auto industry is a major factor in environmental destruction.

I am sure the poor also use free plastic bags from the shops to save money. I know it for a fact because it is what I have done as a poor person, and a multitude of other crazy things to save the last pennies. It does not change the fact plastic must be put an end to...

But it is a bit dishonest to say we can close our eyes to the hard choices before us. The required measures to keep the planet habitable might require a lot of things from all.

[Broomstick]

Heck, look at cars. There are something like 270 million cars in the US, and 17(ish) million are sold ever year. Now, of those 17 million, only between a quarter and a third of a million are electric. Even if you could magically change over all of the car production in the US to electric cars, you would need to either increase car production by over 50% or reduce the number of cars on the road by about 33% to get rid of all of the internal combustion engine powered cars.

Oh, and you have to get everyone on board with a new(ish) car.

Ban or penalize cars with low emission standards and soon you leave people little choice but to buy replacement vehicles. The question is, really, should it be done, not whether it can or cannot be done.

Yeah. Here is my situation:

I have two vehicles, one 17 years old, one 20 years old. They are fully paid for, arguably my two most valuable assets (which on a certain level is sort of pathetic, but whatever), and they are what enable me to be reliable at my job which is my source of income to pay for everything else. While they were great on emissions standards when they were new that was two decades ago, now they're middling at best (actually, the pickup needs work this year to pass even the weak emissions standards we have now, but it's the first time it's failed the testing).

Force me to get a new vehicle - even a used one - and you either saddle me with a monthly payment that busts my budget, or devastates my savings if I pay for it outright, or both. And that's why lots of folks like me wouldn't be in favor of being forced to do this. I have reliable vehicles right now - why impose the economic cost on me to replace them? Unless there's some form of assistance/compensation for making the swap, but in today's political climate I don't see that happening. It would, again, be something that burdens the poor considerably while being barely an annoyance to the rich. And the rich, by and large, don't give enough of a fuck about the world and environment to help the poor make the change for the good of all.

[Broomstick]

Slowly ratcheting up emissions standards over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, and collecting the fees from testing to help build public transportation on the other hand, sounds vaguely reasonable. The downside being that this would still hurt a lot of people who couldn't afford the increased testing, and the US is pretty obnoxiously allergic to public transportation.

Just want to point out that in my state, even though it's a conservative red state, emissions testing is free - there is no charge levied against the person getting a vehicle testing. Re-testing is free. So the "cost of testing" is not the issue, it's the cost of repairs/upgrades/replacements that is the issue.

[Jub]

Yeah. Here is my situation:

I have two vehicles, one 17 years old, one 20 years old. They are fully paid for, arguably my two most valuable assets (which on a certain level is sort of pathetic, but whatever), and they are what enable me to be reliable at my job which is my source of income to pay for everything else. While they were great on emissions standards when they were new that was two decades ago, now they're middling at best (actually, the pickup needs work this year to pass even the weak emissions standards we have now, but it's the first time it's failed the testing).

Force me to get a new vehicle - even a used one - and you either saddle me with a monthly payment that busts my budget, or devastates my savings if I pay for it outright, or both. And that's why lots of folks like me wouldn't be in favor of being forced to do this. I have reliable vehicles right now - why impose the economic cost on me to replace them? Unless there's some form of assistance/compensation for making the swap, but in today's political climate I don't see that happening. It would, again, be something that burdens the poor considerably while being barely an annoyance to the rich. And the rich, by and large, don't give enough of a fuck about the world and environment to help the poor make the change for the good of all.

Obviously, any kind of restriction, assuming it targets things they use, will always hurt the poor more than any other group. That's just the reality of capitalism and a nation that never bothered to invest in and maintain mass transit while also sprawling into suburbs. Is the harm caused to a segment of the US population worth it to help lessen climate change? Is anyone entitled to drive and is that entitlement worth the irreversible damage that allowing so many vehicles causes? Should the rest of the world be happy with the US lagging FAR behind on clean energy?

On another note, how else do you reduce emissions from vehicles in the timespan we have left to fight climate change? If I gave you the mandate to cut vehicle emissions by 30% in the next five years how would you do it without hurting the poor? If that mandate was for 70% could we still do it without hurting the poor? Should we base all our choices on if they hurt some people now or should we try to save things for future generations? Are you Broomstick worth enough to the world that you HAVE to keep your ride?

I think we know how I'd answer these questions but, for the record, I've never had a license and never intend to have one. I have taken transit and based the jobs I can take and where I can live around this limitation. I don't even take cabs or Uber unless 100% required; admittedly mostly due to cost restrictions. I practice what I preach with regards to driving and, thankfully, due to where I live even my power consumption at home is near 100% green.

My broke ass carbon footprint is low, admittedly it could be far lower, but it's hard to be motivated to make deeper cuts when so many people refuse to take transit to work even a day or two per week.

[Broomstick]

Obviously, any kind of restriction, assuming it targets things they use, will always hurt the poor more than any other group. That's just the reality of capitalism and a nation that never bothered to invest in and maintain mass transit while also sprawling into suburbs. Is the harm caused to a segment of the US population worth it to help lessen climate change? Is anyone entitled to drive and is that entitlement worth the irreversible damage that allowing so many vehicles causes? Should the rest of the world be happy with the US lagging FAR behind on clean energy?

How practical is it to throw X number of people under the bus for the benefit of the rest of the world? Because that's sort of what you're doing here. Anticipate that the X number of people are going to resist being thrown under the bus.

On another note, how else do you reduce emissions from vehicles in the timespan we have left to fight climate change?

We are out of time. That ship has sailed. Climate change IS occurring. The question is how much can we limit the damage going forward.

As for reducing emissions - enforcing standards, looking into ways to upgrade vehicles at less than prohibitive costs, the program under Obama that gave people money for turning in old cars so that they had money to purchase newer, better vehicles... don't look for just one solution. Give me a couple thousand for my current vehicles we can discuss my purchase of a newer-to-me more fuel-efficient vehicle whatever it runs on.

If I gave you the mandate to cut vehicle emissions by 30% in the next five years how would you do it without hurting the poor? If that mandate was for 70% could we still do it without hurting the poor?

You can't. No matter what you do you will hurt the poor, the question is how much will you hurt the poor, and which group of the poor will be hurt worst.

You will likely also hurt the middle class as well.

Should we base all our choices on if they hurt some people now or should we try to save things for future generations? Are you Broomstick worth enough to the world that you HAVE to keep your ride?

Give me a viable alternative and I'll give up my ride - but I'm going to fight being rendered jobless, homeless, and starving just like anyone else would.

My broke ass carbon footprint is low, admittedly it could be far lower, but it's hard to be motivated to make deeper cuts when so many people refuse to take transit to work even a day or two per week.

It's not that I'm unwilling to use mass transit it's that it does not exist for me. There is NO mass transit that would take me to my current workplace. For the 8 years I lived in this area and worked in downtown Chicago I still had to get my ass to the train station, and that required a vehicle.

When I lived in Chicago I did not own a car and did not want to. I used trains and buses for daily travel and if needed I could rent a car for a specific trip if the trains and planes did go where I wanted to go, or didn't go all the way there. I am MORE than willing to use public transit but it has to EXIST for me to take it.

Right now,take away my vehicle and you take away my job. Take away my job and I'll shortly be homeless and my ability to eat regularly will be threatened. There isn't an alternative for me right now, right here. Give me an alternative and I'll be willing to give up my vehicles because, honestly, I've never liked driving, it was a skill I required out of necessity rather than choice.

[Jub]

How practical is it to throw X number of people under the bus for the benefit of the rest of the world? Because that's sort of what you're doing here. Anticipate that the X number of people are going to resist being thrown under the bus.

Corporations throw you under the bus and trample you every single day as it stands but somehow when you want to do it for an actual cause, explain why you need to do it, and apologize for the necessity they resist. Unless you're willing to fight the people actually oppressing you why should I care?

We are out of time. That ship has sailed. Climate change IS occurring. The question is how much can we limit the damage going forward.

Not at all if people are unwilling to be a casualty/give up some comforts to help stem the bleed.

As for reducing emissions - enforcing standards, looking into ways to upgrade vehicles at less than prohibitive costs, the program under Obama that gave people money for turning in old cars so that they had money to purchase newer, better vehicles... don't look for just one solution. Give me a couple thousand for my current vehicles we can discuss my purchase of a newer-to-me more fuel-efficient vehicle whatever it runs on.

Too slow and that drives up the costs of used cars anyway as you'll never find a used car for less than fifty-percent over what the minimum trade-in value is. It'd be a fine solution if this was 1980, but not in 2019.

You can't. No matter what you do you will hurt the poor, the question is how much will you hurt the poor, and which group of the poor will be hurt worst.

You will likely also hurt the middle class as well.

Boo hoo, how much has your nation made other people suffer for your quality of life? Take your turn on the rack, shut up, and accept that we can't change anything without being willing to accept suffering.

Give me a viable alternative and I'll give up my ride - but I'm going to fight being rendered jobless, homeless, and starving just like anyone else would.

I can't, but frankly, nobody is worth the cost of not making drastic changes. Not you, not me, not my family, friends, loved ones.

It's not that I'm unwilling to use mass transit it's that it does not exist for me. There is NO mass transit that would take me to my current workplace. For the 8 years I lived in this area and worked in downtown Chicago I still had to get my ass to the train station, and that required a vehicle.

When I lived in Chicago I did not own a car and did not want to. I used trains and buses for daily travel and if needed I could rent a car for a specific trip if the trains and planes did go where I wanted to go, or didn't go all the way there. I am MORE than willing to use public transit but it has to EXIST for me to take it.

There is no fix. We know mass transit isn't coming to you, I know that you would move and use transit if that was an affordable option, I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing.

[aerius]

There is no fix. We know mass transit isn't coming to you, I know that you would move and use transit if that was an affordable option, I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing.

You might want to think that statement through to its logical conclusion. Just saying.

[His Divine Shadow]

Pentti Linkola ITT

[LaCroix]

There is no fix. We know mass transit isn't coming to you, I know that you would move and use transit if that was an affordable option, I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing.

Calm down, Thanos...

[Jub]

You might want to think that statement through to its logical conclusion. Just saying.

My life is just as worthless as anybody else's. I don't exactly contribute to the solution due to lack of means and if that means I go up against the wall so be it. I'd go with a smile if I thought it meant a damn to do so.

Calm down, Thanos...

See above, the world wouldn't miss me, my friends, my family. They probably won't miss you or Broomstick, or damn near anybody else here either.

[aerius]

Calm down, Thanos...

See above, the world wouldn't miss me, my friends, my family. They probably won't miss you or Broomstick, or damn near anybody else here either.

Now think that through to its logical conclusion. Do you really want to go there?

[Jub]

Now think that through to its logical conclusion. Do you really want to go there?

If it buys humanity the time to get off this rock and to the stars then emphatically YES. All 10 Billion or so people on this Earth aren't worth the uncountable number of us that will never be if we crash and burn before we get off this rock.

[Broomstick]

How practical is it to throw X number of people under the bus for the benefit of the rest of the world? Because that's sort of what you're doing here. Anticipate that the X number of people are going to resist being thrown under the bus.

Corporations throw you under the bus and trample you every single day as it stands but somehow when you want to do it for an actual cause, explain why you need to do it, and apologize for the necessity they resist. Unless you're willing to fight the people actually oppressing you why should I care?

Why should YOU care about anyone not yourself? Well, that's sort of a foundation stone of civilization as opposed to barbarism - caring at least somewhat about your neighbor.

Yes, corporations throw us poor under the bus every day... but see, there's not really anything I can do about that other than try to survive. Just like everyone else scrabbling to survive. I'm not happy about it, but I can't change it. I wouldn't be happy about giving up my means to make a livelihood, why is that surprising to anyone?

We are out of time. That ship has sailed. Climate change IS occurring. The question is how much can we limit the damage going forward.

Not at all if people are unwilling to be a casualty/give up some comforts to help stem the bleed.

No. It's too late. We are out of time. It's a done deal.

Climate change IS occurring. Even if we cut emissions to zero right now the damage is done and the global temperatures will continue to rise for some time. Island nations WILL go under water. Coastal regions WILL flood. Weather is already getting more severe in regards to storms.

It is done.

We can talk about mitigating just how bad the final outcome will be, but we are out of good choices. At best, we might be able to pick a lesser evil. That's it.

Boo hoo, how much has your nation made other people suffer for your quality of life? Take your turn on the rack, shut up, and accept that we can't change anything without being willing to accept suffering.

It is against the survival instincts of four billion years to just give up and accept suffering and death. You might get some individual buy in, but not any significant numbers in the larger scheme of things.

Nevermind the whole problem of collective guilt - why don't we just kill off everyone over 30 worldwide for not doing enough, eh? How about a random lottery where half of all people are shot in the head for the "benefit" of the other 50%? And you'll still be dealing with climate change decades from now.

I can't, but frankly, nobody is worth the cost of not making drastic changes. Not you, not me, not my family, friends, loved ones.

Congratulations - you have just stated you're quite willing to see me die, and thus have removed any incentive I might have to buy into your program. Fuck you. Rinse and repeat for everyone you deem "guilty". That's... quite a lot of people, actually, if you're going to include just the US, nevermind the rest of the industrialized world that helped get us to this place. How many billions are you willing to kill for the betterment of humanity in the future? Please, do elucidate further.

There is no fix. We know mass transit isn't coming to you, I know that you would move and use transit if that was an affordable option, I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing.

No, you don't sympathize. You want people like me to crawl off into a fucking corner and die quietly for the furthering of your schemes. Just like the current powers that be would be happy to have the third world poor crawl off into a fucking corner and die quietly. You are no better than they are. It all comes down to starve and/or kill the poor for the benefit of others.

What, no schemes to relocate the poor into urban areas that have transit? No innovative ways to create transit outside the urban areas? No schemes to make working from home more viable? No schemes to increase the ability to use alternate transportation, like bicycles, to get to work? (Problematic in the winter around here, but hey, half the year is better than none, right?) What a poverty of imagination you have!

[Broomstick]

Now think that through to its logical conclusion. Do you really want to go there?

If it buys humanity the time to get off this rock and to the stars then emphatically YES. All 10 Billion or so people on this Earth aren't worth the uncountable number of us that will never be if we crash and burn before we get off this rock.

So... you're saying the Axis powers should have won WWII?

And there are "only" about 7.5 billion on the planet right now, not 10 billion. Quit with the exaggeration and hyperbole. Still not good.

There's also no guarantee it is POSSIBLE for us to move off this rock in any meaningful numbers, ever, even if we do engineer a paradise out of the planet. Or are facing extinction.

[aerius]

Now think that through to its logical conclusion. Do you really want to go there?

If it buys humanity the time to get off this rock and to the stars then emphatically YES. All 10 Billion or so people on this Earth aren't worth the uncountable number of us that will never be if we crash and burn before we get off this rock.

Nope, you still haven't thought it through yet. Your statement is, and I quote, "I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing". The logical endpoint to that statement is we remove ALL human life from the planet. No more humans. Do you get that now?

[Jub]

Why should YOU care about anyone not yourself? Well, that's sort of a foundation stone of civilization as opposed to barbarism - caring at least somewhat about your neighbor.

Yes, corporations throw us poor under the bus every day... but see, there's not really anything I can do about that other than try to survive. Just like everyone else scrabbling to survive. I'm not happy about it, but I can't change it. I wouldn't be happy about giving up my means to make a livelihood, why is that surprising to anyone?

You wouldn't be. Nobody would be, but what other options do we have? You even admitted that there are no drastic changes we can make that wouldn't hurt you. So do you want to the slow death for your grandchildren or the suffering for yourself?

No. It's too late. We are out of time. It's a done deal.

Climate change IS occurring. Even if we cut emissions to zero right now the damage is done and the global temperatures will continue to rise for some time. Island nations WILL go under water. Coastal regions WILL flood. Weather is already getting more severe in regards to storms.

It is done.

We can talk about mitigating just how bad the final outcome will be, but we are out of good choices. At best, we might be able to pick a lesser evil. That's it.

So why isn't taking your beater off the road one of those possible leaser evils? We can't sit around waiting for the fire to go out while shoveling coal into it.

It is against the survival instincts of four billion years to just give up and accept suffering and death. You might get some individual buy in, but not any significant numbers in the larger scheme of things.

Nevermind the whole problem of collective guilt - why don't we just kill off everyone over 30 worldwide for not doing enough, eh? How about a random lottery where half of all people are shot in the head for the "benefit" of the other 50%? And you'll still be dealing with climate change decades from now.

I read A Brave New World and saw a system that was working, bring on the death lotto and happy pills.

Congratulations - you have just stated you're quite willing to see me die, and thus have removed any incentive I might have to buy into your program. Fuck you. Rinse and repeat for everyone you deem "guilty". That's... quite a lot of people, actually, if you're going to include just the US, nevermind the rest of the industrialized world that helped get us to this place. How many billions are you willing to kill for the betterment of humanity in the future? Please, do elucidate further.

I also included myself and everybody I've ever loved in that. There is nothing I wouldn't give to see humanity as a whole have a future out among the stars.

No, you don't sympathize. You want people like me to crawl off into a fucking corner and die quietly for the furthering of your schemes. Just like the current powers that be would be happy to have the third world poor crawl off into a fucking corner and die quietly. You are no better than they are. It all comes down to starve and/or kill the poor for the benefit of others.

What, no schemes to relocate the poor into urban areas that have transit? No innovative ways to create transit outside the urban areas? No schemes to make working from home more viable? No schemes to increase the ability to use alternate transportation, like bicycles, to get to work? (Problematic in the winter around here, but hey, half the year is better than none, right?) What a poverty of imagination you have!

I've never earned more than 20k in a year. I'm poor as fuck and lucky to live in a place that isn't as horrid to be poor in as the US is. If there was a believable program and the will to carry it out that fucked me to save the future, I'd vote for it. In a way I suppose I already have by voting against a pipeline that would undoubtedly bring money into my province and Canada as a whole. The money isn't worth it, the jobs aren't worth it.

The induvidual, the city they live in, the province none of them are worth the cost we're currently paying for them.

So... you're saying the Axis powers should have won WWII?

That doesn't really follow. There's no chance that Nazi Germany would have survived in a stable state post-war even if they had won, the same way the USSR didn't survive. Plus, they would have stifled innovative designs with their policies even had they lasted to the present day.

Also enacting policies that have a side effect of fucking the least well off are different than a mass campaign of genocide. Taking away your car probably won't kill you anyway.

There's also no guarantee it is POSSIBLE for us to move off this rock in any meaningful numbers, ever, even if we do engineer a paradise out of the planet. Or are facing extinction.

If we spent just the US military budget on space flight and assumed no further technologic advancement due to the extra funding, we could already have 238 citizens in space on ISS platforms. It's not the stars but it's a start.

Plus, in terms of getting the needs O2, water, and substrate to grow food and live the solar system has no shortage. There's not that much stopping us from at least trying to get out there, and yet we're still only maybe going to Mars at some undefined point.

Nope, you still haven't thought it through yet. Your statement is, and I quote, "I sympathize but no human life is worth the damage we as a species are doing". The logical endpoint to that statement is we remove ALL human life from the planet. No more humans. Do you get that now?

Yes, if you take that exactly literally it does say that. You win +1 internet point. Enjoy while you can.

The point is that 99% of us really don't do much but scurry around, fuck, feed ourselves, and press the dopamine button in between. At least if we get to space we can do that knowing that we're not one bad solar flare away from extinction while doing sweet fuck all.

[KraytKing]

Ths debate seems to have followed the pattern of being steadily spun out into the crazy zone. I sympathize with Jub's point of view, at least initially. Remember, this started with the suggestion that a government incentive, be it gasoline tax or forced adoption of electric vehicles, that harms the poor would be a necessary evil. If this were done with the proper plan in place to take full advantage of it, it is our duty to take this action no matter the personal cost.

I cannot agree with genocide as Jub is now recommending. It would be pointless if done without a plan, and any plan is going to be hopelessly corrupted.

[Jub]

Ths debate seems to have followed the pattern of being steadily spun out into the crazy zone. I sympathize with Jub's point of view, at least initially. Remember, this started with the suggestion that a government incentive, be it gasoline tax or forced adoption of electric vehicles, that harms the poor would be a necessary evil. If this were done with the proper plan in place to take full advantage of it, it is our duty to take this action no matter the personal cost.

I cannot agree with genocide as Jub is now recommending. It would be pointless if done without a plan, and any plan is going to be hopelessly corrupted.

I think you miss the point that doing nothing has/is/will be genocide for more people than even I'd be comfortable killing. With the added side effect that it kills more other species too.

In this case, doing nothing is literally worse than even my craziest idea ever could be. It's just that I'm suggesting hurting people here and now and most of you are happy to kick the can a few more times.

[K. A. Pital]

Hahah.

I said it before. Status quo is not casualty-free.

Jub may not have made the most eloquent defense of this undeniable truth, but a point for trying.

[Jub]

Hahah.

I said it before. Status quo is not casualty-free.

Jub may not have made the most eloquent defense of this undeniable truth, but a point for trying.

I'm sick of the throw up your hands and say nothing can be done attitude around here.

Gun deaths and mass shootings everywhere. Suggest removing guns. Get told that the US is teh special and they need guns for 'reasons'.

Suggest people make some personal sacrifices which I am willing to or already making so we don't bake the planet. Get called a Nazi.

Suggest that US citizens should do more about their politicians because the rest of the world suffers for their inaction. Get told that there's nothing they can do.

For fucks sakes, we may as well do something because what we currently have is a turd baking on the sidewalk while those with money walk around it with perfume to their noses.

[Enigma]

So you want the Thanos option, Jub? Cure the disease by killing the patient? How do you select those to die to save the rest? The problem with any scenario is that the solution doesn't take into account the one thing that can\will wreck it and that is greed.

This is just my personal opinion, but unless you can solve the issue of greed (the lust for more money, power, valuing ones' life more than others, etc...), no plan will truly succeed.

Bah, going to bed.

[Jub]

So you want the Thanos option, Jub? Cure the disease by killing the patient? How do you select those to die to save the rest? The problem with any scenario is that the solution doesn't take into account the one thing that can\will wreck it and that is greed.

This is just my personal opinion, but unless you can solve the issue of greed (the lust for more money, power, valuing ones' life more than others, etc...), no plan will truly succeed.

Bah, going to bed.

You only solve that by pushing past our current planet bound state.

Once we hit space resources stop being scarce. We just need to get there.