UN Chief Calls For Windfall Tax On Fossil Fuel Companies (theguardian.com) 212
Countries should impose windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies and divert the money to vulnerable nations suffering worsening losses from the climate crisis, the United Nations secretary general has urged. The Guardian reports: Antonio Guterres said that "polluters must pay" for the escalating damage caused by heatwaves, floods, drought and other climate impacts, and demanded that it was "high time to put fossil fuel producers, investors and enablers on notice." "Today, I am calling on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies," Guterres said in a speech to the UN general assembly on Tuesday. "Those funds should be redirected in two ways -- to countries suffering loss and damage caused by the climate crisis and to people struggling with rising food and energy prices." Guterres's appeal came in his most urgent, and bleakest, speech to date on the state of the planet, and the will of governments to change course. His first words were: "Our world is in big trouble."
"Let's have no illusions. We are in rough seas. A winter of global discontent is on the horizon, a cost-of-living crisis is raging, trust is crumbling, inequalities are exploding and our planet is burning," he told the assembly. "We have a duty to act and yet we are gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction. The international community is not ready or willing to tackle the big dramatic challenges of our age." [...] Under Guterres's proposal, revenue from the taxes would flow to predominantly developing countries suffering "loss and damage" from global heating, to be invested in early warning systems, mopping up from disasters and other initiatives to build resilience. Vulnerable countries are poised to leverage the UN general assembly week to ask rich nations for a "climate-related and justice-based" global tax to pay for loss and damage.
But his speech on Tuesday was particularly pointed, delivered on the grand dais of the general assembly and following the secretary general's recent visit to Pakistan, where floods from what he called "a monsoon on steroids" have submerged a third of the country and displaced millions of people. [...] Governments must stage an "intervention" to break their addiction to fossil fuels, Guterres said, by targeting not only the extractive companies themselves but the entire infrastructure of businesses that support them. "That includes the banks, private equity, asset managers and other financial institutions that continue to invest and underwrite carbon pollution," said the secretary general. "And it includes the massive public relations machine raking in billions to shield the fossil fuel industry from scrutiny. Just as they did for the tobacco industry decades before, lobbyists and spin doctors have spewed harmful misinformation. Fossil fuel interests need to spend less time averting a PR disaster -- and more time averting a planetary one." Guterres said it was "high time to move beyond endless discussions" and deliver finance for vulnerable countries and for wealthy nations to double adaption funding by 2025, as they promised to do at UN climate talks in Scotland last year.
"Let's have no illusions. We are in rough seas. A winter of global discontent is on the horizon, a cost-of-living crisis is raging, trust is crumbling, inequalities are exploding and our planet is burning," he told the assembly. "We have a duty to act and yet we are gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction. The international community is not ready or willing to tackle the big dramatic challenges of our age." [...] Under Guterres's proposal, revenue from the taxes would flow to predominantly developing countries suffering "loss and damage" from global heating, to be invested in early warning systems, mopping up from disasters and other initiatives to build resilience. Vulnerable countries are poised to leverage the UN general assembly week to ask rich nations for a "climate-related and justice-based" global tax to pay for loss and damage.
But his speech on Tuesday was particularly pointed, delivered on the grand dais of the general assembly and following the secretary general's recent visit to Pakistan, where floods from what he called "a monsoon on steroids" have submerged a third of the country and displaced millions of people. [...] Governments must stage an "intervention" to break their addiction to fossil fuels, Guterres said, by targeting not only the extractive companies themselves but the entire infrastructure of businesses that support them. "That includes the banks, private equity, asset managers and other financial institutions that continue to invest and underwrite carbon pollution," said the secretary general. "And it includes the massive public relations machine raking in billions to shield the fossil fuel industry from scrutiny. Just as they did for the tobacco industry decades before, lobbyists and spin doctors have spewed harmful misinformation. Fossil fuel interests need to spend less time averting a PR disaster -- and more time averting a planetary one." Guterres said it was "high time to move beyond endless discussions" and deliver finance for vulnerable countries and for wealthy nations to double adaption funding by 2025, as they promised to do at UN climate talks in Scotland last year.
Gas for $10 a gallon (Score:2)
Sounds like the UN Secretary wants gas to cost a lot more than it does now.
Re: Gas for $10 a gallon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is obvious that you are thinking only of the US, but this is a global problem. The price of petrol in the US is already much lower than in most of the West.
And if US cities had been planned to be actually liveable, you know, for humans instead of cars, then US:ians wouldn't have been so dependent on their cars and on spending fuel. It is only reasonable that you should pay the full price for your bad planning, without subsidies.
The proposals also cover other fossil fuels, as well as other uses of fossil
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, in a few years cars won't need gas anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, life was quite affordable in East Germany. Rent was like 5 percent of your income and basic foods were dirt cheap.
You just couldn't get anything but food and shelter for your money, that's all.
Basically the difference between communism and capitalism is just that in communism, you could afford everything but nothing is available to buy, and in captialism, everything is available but you can't afford it.
Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also some other ways to ensure that tax won't go to the consumer, a bit of creativity goes a long way there. Besides, they don't really want to up the prices much more because we're getting close to where buying a E-Car becomes much more viable by the day, and the last thing they'd want is that everyone tells them to fuck off with their fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Barking against the wrong tree (Score:2)
I see this in my country too. And while it's true that energy-related companies are having soaring profits, and maybe you could ask them to reduce margins or increase the taxes, it's not where the big money goes. The big profits go to oil/gas producing countries and speculators.
Re: (Score:3)
The UN idiot who flies in a private jet himself (Score:2)
Maybe he can meet up with Al Gore for some good advise.
a better idea would be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already are, depending on your personal circumstances. I'm in the UK and just about to junk a 2007 Ford Focus and replace with a Volkswagen id3. At the current cost of petrol and electricity in the UK, and considering the number of miles I travel per week, the cost of the loan to buy the new car is equal to what will be saved in fuel costs. If I had solar panels and battery storage, that would go from break-even to a saving of about £200/month. Depending on how the electricity price goes over the
Re: (Score:2)
Tax bureaucracy (Score:2)
See how they like it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not.
Bureaucracy is a self-perpetuating monster fed off of the population it supposedly serves. Its only desire is to grow and consume more.
It's fed by laws passed by idiots who you wouldn't trust to hold your wallet and who only care about special interests and getting re-elected.
Worse yet is the onerous burden of when you get caught up by one of them, they don't listen, you're guilty and they'll even set up
their own courts to convict you.
Yeah, nobody wants to fuck up where they live but don't come
Just tax carbon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are about as optimistic of a person as I've ever seen in my life.
I don't see even close to a majority of cars in the US being EV or non-ICE in 10years.
Hell, it'll take 20 years to get the grid even close to ready to handle all those EVs...in addition to all the reasons we use and strain the existing one today.
$10 gas makes things so expensive
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting!!
Nice to hear from someone in the industry...
I noticed you used km...so, guessing your are in Europe.
It sounds like, from what I read, that there ya'll have a head start on the US as far as charging infrastructure goes, which would help a lot.
While it is building out here, it is pretty scarce outside of the few large, urban centers in the US..ie west coast and likely east coast.
I look at the maps for charging in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, for owners that only use it as a car for transportation about town.
But for those that use a pickup truck as a work horse, I'm afraid the lack of charging infrastructure and limitations of charge...might hinder it if it can't compete with and ICE version of it for hauling all day, etc...
I'm also thinking invest in lithium mining and mining
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spend 3 weeks without the benefits of petroleum (Score:2, Informative)
Try to spend 3 weeks without the benefits of all products that are made directly or indirectly from petroleum products.
You will basically be living an episode of "naked and afraid".
This is just a cash grab, nothing more.
Econ anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of how you feel about fossil fuel producers, removing profit incentive to do something is not a great way to get people to do something. If you are worried about a shortage of fossil fuels, the worst possible thing to do is discourage their production.
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, a windfall is something the recipient did nothing to receive therefore taxing it up to 100% cannot disincentivize any action on the recipient's part.
When will the UN address overpopulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Serious question as we approach 8 billion people. No, I'm not eating bugs either. Also, don't spew the falsehoods that two of the largest nations in terms of population actually give two rat shits about "climate change"
Re: (Score:3)
Their conclusion was that If a birth control program is not entirely and completely voluntary, then it is 'Genocide' or 'Crimes against humanity ' https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So make sterilization free for everyone, and declare infertility (whether natural or through sterilization) to be immediately eligible for disability benefits even if the person chooses to continue to work.
No thank you. (Score:3)
How about a windfall tax on UN Diplomats (Score:2)
How about windfall tax on UN Diplomats and their staff?
They are super carbon intensive lot always jetting around between NYC and wherever home is to attend meeting they could as easily do remotely.
They never accomplish anything because all the players that mater create independent treaty obligations to each other via their respective state departments and equivalents.
I suggest a tax rate of 100% of salary
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:4, Insightful)
Hate the game, not the player.
These companies are (and have been) performing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, using all tools that have been available to them. If you don't like the way things look, then change the rules of the game by changing laws. This looks like just that. So good.
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:5, Insightful)
They've made no serious plans to change their line of business. They've continued to expand oil production and thus emissions as fast as possible.
They've pumped gazillions of dollars into political influence and propaganda designed to stop the very evironmentally responsible law modifications you speak of. So yes, they are culpable.
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:5, Interesting)
Private companies can't be trusted to manage resources and avoid doing harm. Resources like oil and coal should only be acquired by state owned companies, with the profits put into a sovereign wealth fund. Like Norway did.
Then we could be putting all that build up wealth towards reaching net zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Private companies can't be trusted to manage resources and avoid doing harm. Resources like oil and coal should only be acquired by state owned companies, with the profits put into a sovereign wealth fund. Like Norway did.
Then we could be putting all that build up wealth towards reaching net zero.
By American standards that's communism.
Re: (Score:3)
Or socialism. And I do say, nationalize them.
Re: (Score:3)
Private companies can't be trusted to manage resources and avoid doing harm.
You're right, of course, but I'm not sure we trust a massive climate slush fund (administered by the UN or others) to be well managed either. Taxing corporations typically becomes a shell game anyway, so if you're end game is to reduce consumption of production deemed harmful, an end user tax might be more effective.
Resources like oil and coal should only be acquired by state owned companies, with the profits put into a sovereign wealth fund. Like Norway did.
Also, like Venezuela did. Institutional government regulation of an industry is no guarantee it won't be managed worse than By private industry. Corruption by corporations is ubiquitous, and pos
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Something not working in Venezuela isn't the trump card some people seem to think it is. Lots of things don't work in countries being screwed with my the US, and with a broken democracy. If we acted like anything that doesn't work in broken, sanctioned countries, can't work anywhere, we wouldn't have much left.
Re: (Score:2)
Puerto Rico is a prime example of a place that has been completely broken by neoliberal capitalism and colonial policies. They've taken a place with some of the most fertile soil on earth and they have to import most of their food. They have abundant solar, wind, and water power but have to import most of their energy fossil fuels. They've stripped education, health care, water and other public services.
Re: (Score:2)
Private companies can't be trusted to manage resources and avoid doing harm. Resources like oil and coal should only be acquired by state owned companies, with the profits put into a sovereign wealth fund. Like Norway did.
Then we could be putting all that build up wealth towards reaching net zero.
You're right of course, the CO2 from Norwegian oil does not cause global warming, in fact the opposite!
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously it's a shame that we all burned loads of oil, but at least in Norway the profits from doing that are now going into reaching net zero.
Norway is the first country to really embrace electric vehicles, with high levels of adoption and huge numbers of chargers installed. Norway is a big country with a harsh climate, and they have proven that EVs are practical under those conditions. There is great value in that, because it shows other countries that it can be done and is actually a better experience t
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming the fossil fuel corporations play by the rules. Have you been living under a rock for the past few decades? They make up their own rules as they go. There are no depths they won't sink to. They're psychopaths that need to be stopped because they certainly won't stop themselves. If corporations are people, when can Texas start executing them?
True, but he's been living under a stack of books written by Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and the rest of that 'selfishness is a virtue and greed is good' ilk, not rocks. His little speech is why I always burst into laughter whenever one of these people starts talking about 'voluntary self regulation by businesses'. Selfishness and greed always trump any desire to do 'voluntary self regulation' out of some sense of communal responsibility to not turn the planet into a toxic wasteland reminiscent of a 40k Industrial World. On top of that a whole bunch of the outrages these fossil fuel companies commit is thanks to them bribing politicians to change laws in ways that allow them to screw over the rest of us.
"Fiduciary Duty" [Re:Better: Polluters stop p...] (Score:5, Insightful)
... These companies are (and have been) performing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, using all tools that have been available to them.
We need to kill this bizarre notion that companies have a "fiduciary duty to their shareholders" to make as much money as possible while paying no attention to consequences.
This is not true. Corporations are voluntary organizations of people. The idea that when people get together in the form of a business, morality and responsibility suddenly take second place to the new "duty" of maximizing profit is abhorrent.
This is a concept that has suddenly cropped up in the last decade or so which needs to be confronted and discontinued.
Re:"Fiduciary Duty" [Re:Better: Polluters stop p.. (Score:4)
The idea that when people get together in the form of a business, morality and responsibility suddenly take second place to the new "duty" of maximizing profit is abhorrent.
The problem is those people that get together in the form of a business themselves are shielded from the law by the business. So, boat load of oil spills in pristine, to bad, so sad, fine the company and move on. Bad valve leaks in chemical plant and thousands of people die, well sucks to be them, but the press is going to eat us alive.
Here is an idea, remove that immunity from corporate officers. Boat load of oil turns over, hello board of directors, cost of clean is coming directly out of your pocket. Leaky valve kills thousands of people, well here is your jail cell Mr. CEO, your 3rd degree murder trial starts tomorrow morning.
May seem to be a bit extreme and I know some times the executive officers do go to prison, but it doesn't happen as much as it should. An is it really that extreme to hold the people at the top making the most money responsible for a change?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, and you know it. "Change the laws"... in *which* country, Saudi Arabia? In the UK, with Liz 2x4 overtly helping the banksters against the rest of the populace?
And since when does "fiduciary duty" override social duty and laws? If the companies' product is literally destroying nations (see Pakistan, and also the US sw), is that their duty (oh, yes, Bush, Sr.'s father, whose company was seized by the US gov't in 1942 for following their fiduciary duty to keep funding Hitler), should they double down
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:4, Insightful)
It's good that we're finally starting to realise that (1) this is a serious problem and (2) those who profit from it should clean up the mess.
But I have my doubts that taxes would have much of an impact. They'll just pay up and continue.
Alternative: Hand out new drilling permits only for companies who provably can and will remove the equivalent amount of carbon from the cycle, preferably a multiple of it.
No, they'll bribe congress people, get a crap ton of legal loopholes, pay themselves massive bonuses, bank the money in tax havens and continue.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'congress' exists only in certain countries. Here, we are dealing with a global issue.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'congress' exists only in certain countries. Here, we are dealing with a global issue.
Ok, strike 'congress' and replace it with 'ruling elite', same process though, bribe, change laws, pay yourself bonuses, hide the money in tax havens, business continues as usual. The american model of bribing congress people is just one implementation of an ancient and well known game plan.
Re: (Score:2)
"those who profit from it should clean up the mess."
Of course you mean everybody that profits, right? That would mean the extractors, the refiners, the transporters, the traders, the industrial users, the middle men who buy the products, the stores that retail them, everybody up to (and sometimes including) the consumer end-point.
People just refuse to acknowledge that every barrel of oil does "something", and when you prevent that barrel of oil from reaching market, you stop whatever that "something" was.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you drive a car? Use electricity in your home? If so, you are just as guilty.
If there was no demand for oil, and gas, nobody would produce it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't own a car and drive very rarely.
But assigning blame and guilt won't help to solve the problem. Physics doesn't care about these categories.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you drive a car? Use electricity in your home? If so, you are just as guilty. If there was no demand for oil, and gas, nobody would produce it.
Came here to say just that. I'm going to be heating my home and filling my car with fossil fuel products for a long time to come, as will the vast majority of people I know. And no, I don't feel guilty. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to tax it, why not just put a price on fossil fuels? The real issue here isn't revenue windfalls, the issue is that we let fossil fuel companies privatize those profits, and then socialize the resulting effects. If we used carbon pricing schemes, then we at least make the price reflect the externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 thing to do is
...he says, counting to one with three different things. I guess two came for free?
1) lower the cost of energy
Oh but to do that, you'd have to get rid of fossil fuels first, because their costs are rapidly increasing in a way that even geoengineering might not be able to solve.
2) eliminate all f_cking stUpid regulations
Regulators are already in bed with energy companies.
3) restore free markets.
Energy markets will never be free as long as there are several humongous players. So you're calling for the destruction of humongous corporations, basically.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, you're playing fast and loose with the term "cost".
Not saying the world doesn't need to decarbonize.
It does.
But destroying energy production without having the replacement capacity ALREADY IN PLACE is a recipe for disaster.
Then, all the sudden it's "We've had a shortfall..." and people start DYING.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, you're playing fast and loose with the term "cost".
No I'm not. Fossil fuels have *enormous* costs. It seems that it was Anonymous Retard who was 'playing fast and loose with the term "cost"'.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels have *enormous* costs."
What would the cost be to the world if we remove fossil fuels considering they're heavily used in agricultural production (the production of food, transportation of food and preservation of food)?
How many will die in famines or wars generated by the instabilities caused by such famines?
"It seems that it was Anonymous Retard who was 'playing fast and loose with the term "cost"'
Seems that "AR" isn't the only one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"False dichotomy."
I never claimed it would be a world "without agricultural production". You are putting words in my mouth trying to create a straw man. I claimed there would be global famine and all the consequences of that famine.
It's estimated that just about half the world population could be sustained without synthetic fertilizer -- most of which sources hydrogen from fossil fuels. How would you propose to produce enough food to feed the world without fossil fuels? We haven't even touched on movi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any serious policy expert is saying "Shut off the taps tomorrow". But they are saying we need to wean ourselves off of it sooner rather than later. All too often "we can't do it right now" lead to goals so distant in time they're not going to accomplish anything.
We're forty years late to the game, and yet we still talk as if we have decades. We don't. So if not tomorrow, then when?
Re: (Score:2)
"But they are saying we need to wean ourselves off of it sooner rather than later."
See my reply above. It's how fast that "sooner" is that could end up killing a goodly part of the worlds population through famine and war just by making food "too expensive" to produce or move around.
Re: (Score:3)
Without water, having megatons of fertilizer will do absolutely no good. Less fertilizer certainly effects crop yields, and takes marginally arable or essentially artificial arable land out of the equation, and yes, those are significant threats. But if rain belts shift, or precipitation patterns change so that water is either not available, or not available at the right times, then even currently arable land is taken out. The threat of losses of fresh water are showing up all over the globe; from melting g
Re: Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to say something very unpopular, but so be it. Yes, poor countries should receive help from the developed world. But poor countries should do something in return. Put strict limits on their population growth. The current number of humans on Earth (and the poor countries in particular) is unsustainably large. This unsustainability lies at the root of many global problems, and the problem with the global warming makes no exception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but "Too many people" is a myth.
With modern food production methods, we could EASILY support half-again as many people as we have now.
Re:Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "modern food production methods" you mean mechanized agriculture with artificial fertilizers, then while it may be true that "we could easily support half-again as many people as we have now", the question is for how long? We already know that even though in short term, this massively increases agricultural productivity, in long term, just for starters, it also massively increases soil erosion.
It's what you do that matters not mechanization and fertilizer use. Measures such as rotation and low till are not incompatible with fertilizer use or mechanization.
The choice is not between following the path of least resistance into a ditch and not being able to support populations.
So if you enable large populations using methods that lead you to a dead end, that just sounds like unintentional global genocide to me. If you get to twelve billion people at one point and then agricultural productivity starts dropping off the cliff, you're going to have billions of starving people to deal with.
There are an infinite well of possibilities waiting for investment. (e.g. Aquaculture, synthetic foods / terra preta...etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they had some self contraint...we wouldn't HAVE to produce that much food.
And let's face it, it isn't going to happen, we're not going to be raising food here to ship over there.
They DO have too much population for what THEY can support themselves...you'd think nature would self regulate that...
Solve population [Re:Better: Polluters stop...] (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to say something very unpopular, but so be it. Yes, poor countries should receive help from the developed world. But poor countries should do something in return. Put strict limits on their population growth. The current number of humans on Earth (and the poor countries in particular) is unsustainably large. This unsustainability lies at the root of many global problems, and the problem with the global warming makes no exception.
As it happens, it is already known what measures to take to decrease population growth. These are three primary measures:
1. Decrease poverty. Poor people have more children than non-poor people.
2. Increase education. Educated people have fewer children than uneducated people. (Especially women).
3. Make birth control easily available. Independent of items one and two, people who have access to birth control have fewer children than people who don't.
You want to decrease population growth? That's how to do it. Reduce poverty, increase education, allow people access to birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to decrease population growth? That's how to do it. Reduce poverty, increase education, allow people access to birth control.
Worldwide population growth is below replacement currently. Your policy recommendations are at least 10 years out of date. Also, this policy won't do anything. Energy costs are folded into almost everything humans do. All this policy will do it increase the costs of everything (causing more inflation) and move those funds into government coffers where it will do who knows what. Also, by increasing energy costs you make recycling even less economically viable as recycling is very energy intensive.
So
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like China's much reviled (by practically everybody including the right wing) one child policy
The (American) right wing is against it only because it's an affront to the Christian values. We SHOULDN'T care about any religious values. Religion is one of the main culprits for turning this world into excrem*nt. God dies without followers. That's why the faithful need to create more little faithful ones, the more the merrier. Don't worry if you can't support them, God will take care of them.
or should we just send in the marines to forcibly castrate them all?
Did someone send marines to China? Please refresh my memory, it's a little rusty lately.
Publicly airing the inspirations you drew from reading 'Mein Kampf' is best done under the 'Anonymous Coward' stealth shield like I'm doing so that your fellow believers in eugenics and personal wealth based population culling can't burn my karma.
Well, this assumes that I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Food's #1 ingredient is f_cking fossil-derived fertilizer. Tax oil profits and you are f_cking guaranteed to make food more expensive, which will affect the poorest the most. And no f_cking st_pid amount of taxation will create more food for those earning the least. And in hot or cold places, the cost of energy is a #1 determinant of poverty. Increase energy costs and you are destroying their disposable income.
If it literally can't be done through taxation, then governments might have to take the other route. Just form their own government department to extract oil and cancel the oil companies leases, kick them off the land and take over. Where there's expensive capital equipment in place, take it and pay fair market value for it. People can complain about capitalism and fair market value, etc, but eminent domain is a thing. If it can apply to some eighty year old grandmother and her family home that she's lived
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I'm wondering why we don't suggest to them that they pick another country to set up home base in...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you that stupid?
>"Those funds should be redirected in two ways -- to countries suffering loss and damage caused by the climate crisis and to people struggling with rising food and energy prices."
Food's #1 ingredient is f_cking fossil-derived fertilizer. Tax oil profits and you are f_cking guaranteed to make food more expensive, which will affect the poorest the most. And no f_cking st_pid amount of taxation will create more food for those earning the least. And in hot or cold places, the cost of energy is a #1 determinant of poverty. Increase energy costs and you are destroying their disposable income.
This f_cking st_pid statement above is a cleverly designed self-fulfilled promise to destroy civilization, starting with the poor first. If we want to help the poor, #1 thing to do is 1) lower the cost of energy 2) eliminate all f_cking stUpid regulations 3) restore free markets. The biggest starvation events in history are 1) Soviet Union (Ukraine) and 2) China under communist rule.
When did people like you became so f_cking st_pid?
Free markets never solve anything. Unless you're suffering from a lack of slavery, child labour, and workplace injuries.
And they're never really free in any useful sense, just unregulated.
Re: Better: Polluters stop polluting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's compromise: Tax the living shit out of them and earmark that tax money to do just that.
That would probably hasten their end but eventually fossil fuels will just fade out like steam power did due to technological advances. Only the galactically stupid stick with a completely obsolete and inefficient technology because of political ideology. Even red states in the US have started deploying lots of renewables, not because they are a bunch of tree-huggers but simply because it makes more sense when measured in dollars and cents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have them around but transformed into cleaners-up of the mess they created.
Mind you, big oil has massive amounts of $$$, infrastructure and know how. Put that to good use.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather have them around but transformed into cleaners-up of the mess they created.
Mind you, big oil has massive amounts of $$$, infrastructure and know how. Put that to good use.
It would be gratifying to make them shovel up their own shit but that will never happen. They own too many politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I can convince you otherwise: *Regulate* the living shit out of them (we'll need to do that anyway). Industry tends to find very creative ways of solving problems if the constraints are clearly set.
Tax money, earmarked or not, has a fatal tendency to be spent ineffectively and/or ending up in pockets of a precious few individuals or companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in countries where you can only choose between money being spent on the cronies of one party or the other one, but there are countries that have more than two parties.
Re: (Score:2)
It's whoever uses the resources, which is exactly who has to pay for the "invisible hand" to function. This is a plan with no drawbacks. Tell us you want something for free without telling us.
Re: (Score:2)
It's whoever uses the resources, which is exactly who has to pay for the "invisible hand" to function. This is a plan with no drawbacks. Tell us you want something for free without telling us.
The invisible hand doesn't function. It's invisible because it doesn't exist. Smith was an upper-class twit with no grasp of economics because he had no grasp of human nature and spun a vision every bit as fantastical as anything Marx ever did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Smith was an upper-class twit with no grasp of economics because he had no grasp of human nature and spun a vision every bit as fantastical as anything Marx ever did.
Found the guy who thinks Smith only wrote one book.
Re: (Score:3)
Smith was an upper-class twit with no grasp of economics because he had no grasp of human nature and spun a vision every bit as fantastical as anything Marx ever did.
Found the guy who thinks Smith only wrote one book.
Well, I've read two of his books. They were both amusing as satire of a certain type of Edinburgh intellectual from that time, but as serious guides to the economy they were beyond naive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's whoever uses the resources, which is exactly who has to pay for the "invisible hand" to function. This is a plan with no drawbacks. Tell us you want something for free without telling us.
The invisible hand doesn't function. It's invisible because it doesn't exist. Smith was an upper-class twit with no grasp of economics because he had no grasp of human nature and spun a vision every bit as fantastical as anything Marx ever did.
Oh, it exists. The problem with the invisible hand is that it is made up of people who are supposed to always calmly make the most rational choice. Problem is that a bunch of panicking humans are nothing close to rational. Humnans don't even have anything close to a sterling record of making rational choices when the aren't panicking.
You just want to watch the world burn eh? (Score:2)
When I share facts that are relevant to ensuring we have a future, someone mods them down.
Lizard people with modpoints?
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: It's not the shareholders.
So it is time to hold the shareholders responsible for the damage they (indirectly) do. Off course that also needs a law that shareholders must be identified, even through financial constructions
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is time to hold the shareholders responsible for the damage they (indirectly) do. Off course that also needs a law that shareholders must be identified, even through financial constructions
It's mostly pension funds. Pass a law requiring pension funds to divest from fossil fuels. Fade it in gradually so fossil fuel share prices don't collapse overnight & probably at least some of the money will transfer to renewables, thereby accelerating the transition to lower carbon economies.
How about that for a simple solution? Another option is to phase out fossil fuels subsidies & phase in a carbon tax at source, instead of just levying occasional windfall taxes to appease the unwashed, indign
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has decided to levy a windfall tax to reduce bills, in light of rising gas prices. Consumers will pay less.
It's a tax on profits, so there isn't really much the fossil fuel companies can do to avoid it. They all have the usual shenanigans set up, shell company incorporated in Ireland or the Caribbean or whatever, but the EU is wise to that and has also brought in rules to tax them based on global earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have a flat-rate tax on dividends. It's the USA that allows dividends to be diverted to a no-tax slush fund and that caps taxes on rich people.
That solution's just been legalized in California (Score:2)
Couldn't we just use the ultra-rich in a way to bring fertility to the soils?
Sure. California, for instance, just legalized composting the dead [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The price hike didn't hit me at all, I just recently noticed. The food I buy wasn't affected in even remotely the same way as the kibble for the poor. We both faced the same net increase, just for me that meant like 20% higher prices while to them, it can easily mean 50% higher prices.
I can afford that. Easily. A few 100 more a month doesn't make or break my bank. A few 100 more a month when you only have a few 100 a month is life or death.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do lower income consumers deserve a refund? Why should they not have skin in the game. If their taxes are refunded anyway, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to reduce their use of carbon products.