Jumpin said:
1. Carbon taxation isn't going to work in itself without incentives to switch to energy efficient technology. If the US isn't already doing this, they should be, other countries have been doing this for quite some time. As well, carbon tax funds can be returned to the population, so the poor who don't consume much energy anyway actually benefit from it, while the wealthy pay into the fund. The US has been talking about UBI, a stiff carbon tax is a good way to fund it. Other things the US needs to do is end incentives for burning fuels, and increase incentives for non-pollution emissions. Nuclear power is one method for certain locations, but technology in other sectors is rapidly increasing, and even some third world countries have more sophisticated green energy generations than the US, which is kind of sad. But I'm in favour of a carbon tax, because even if we do get the world on 100% green energy, many industrial processes still use a tremendous volume of fossil fuels. While things are improving drastically, countries like China and the US don't seem to want to budge on updating their manufacturing processes - they have to. 2. Aren't some kinds of pollution already a criminal offense? This isn't particularly a stretch. 3. Most countries have been working on this problem for decades by heavily increasing mass transit, electric vehicles, and increasing the amount of work from home opportunities - I've been working primarily from home for years now. 4. Part of the problem is the rapid growth in beef demand over the last century in certain countries. Most of the deforestation is to support this industry. Then there's this even stupider market "grass fed beef" that is even worse than the already highly destructive than other cow-based markets. Levy heavy taxes against beef, and tank the market, fund government buybacks of land. Fisheries is such an easy solution that it's hard not to facepalm at the brain dead approach of overfishing the entire world that civilization has taken. It's just a matter of protecting most of the oceans, and then fishing the spillover in much smaller regions. The ideology of neoliberal deregulation is like brain damage on civilization, and cancer on the world as a whole. |
I want to say this is a well educated post. Thank you for offering up solutions.
1. I agree that green energy is a proper goal. I won’t quibble on nuclear waste, but I do know some gets stored somewhere in Nevada. The fact is all oil is purchased with American dollar; America and western culture have an interest in carbon emissions. The reason English language is dominant in the world, is because oil is only purchased with dollars. If we give up oil, we give up world dominance. Which I’m fine 100% with, but the feds aren’t. Thus, a switch to green energy will take a back seat, sadly.
2. It’s very difficult to corner a billionaire. They cover their tracks, buy the right people, and outlast expensive court dealings. I know a few who’ve been caught polluting waters, but none who polluted air.
3. I agree zoom has stopped a lot of pollution. Electric vehicles will hopefully get cheaper and truly make an impact in a few years. Still, you can see, the freeways are only getting more congested; we are an undeniable source of pollution. Most of us are, essentially, too addicted to oil to take responsibility.
4. I haven’t seen the same thing as you about beef industry causing deforestation. I was thinking about the roads, parking lots, neighborhoods, and commercial centers. I’ve only lived in metropolis’s, and their suburbs spread! I’m sure all of many factors combine to make mass deforestation. I personally like organic meats because I want the animals to have a decent life, not a caged/tortured life. Again, it’s hard for me to comment. Don’t think the government ownership of land is a solution. I am as concerned as you about the fish in the ocean. I know there are sea animals without food because humans harvest too much.
