• philm@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.

    I’m a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it’s a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the ability to produce enough food. It’s not the tax that’s the issue it’s that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.

      • philm@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Certainly, it will be really “interesting” how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn’t the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it’s totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food. I think we’ll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc. But it will be “meaty” for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The odds that the adaption is rapid and doesn’t cause extreme changes in the daily conditions of everyone are vanishing.

          • philm@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely, and it’s astonishing, that still so few people see how “deep in shit” we already are, and I really hope that very soon ( < 5 years or so) a lot more people through whatever means will start to see that. But I think it’s not a good idea to go into the doomsday mood, I don’t think that helps either (individually, say depression etc. inability for action). But yeah it’s depressing how little this topic is still relevant in politics etc. and how little the scientific community is/was heard, that is telling us that we need to change like > 70 years ago (and a very soft transition would’ve been possible since than, not so much now unfortunately, whether we do it, or nature does it…).

            • hglman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess it’s less doom and more, you can just use an ev, and magically, it’s all ok. It will take significant social and economic changes that will radically alter how people in the first world live.