Hacker News Reader

Comment by keymone | Hacker News Reader

First of all, “attempting to shift blame” is exactly the kind of propaganda I’m talking about, so kudos.

Second, virtually nothing consumers require is inherently ghg-emitting, it’s just the cheapest way to satisfy the need, which is why trying to satisfy in a less ghg-intensive way is economically unviable until you start punishing ghg-intensive processes.

There is zero blame on consumers as I see it - they want something inherently ghg-intensive, they’ll have to pay higher price.

Incentives work on all levels but you need to start with the source - producers. They must pay for externalities.

View on HN

>Second, virtually nothing consumers require is inherently ghg-emitting, it’s just the cheapest way to satisfy the need, which is why trying to satisfy in a less ghg-intensive way is economically unviable until you start punishing ghg-intensive processes.

You could say the same for corporations. There's nothing about an incorporated legal entity that requires the emission of greenhouse gasses.

>There is zero blame on consumers as I see it - they want something inherently ghg-intensive, they’ll have to pay higher price.

There is zero blame on corporations as I see it - if consumers don't want something inherently ghg-intensive, they’ll have to pay higher price.

> There's nothing about an incorporated legal entity that requires the emission of greenhouse gasses.

Except profit maximization, you mean?

> if consumers don't want something inherently ghg-intensive, they’ll have to pay higher price.

And they will, that’s the point. Doesn’t shift an ounce of blame off of corporations to customers - they will proceed to destroy the environment because short term profits are more important than long term survival.

>Except profit maximization, you mean?

that just goes back to your previous comment. There's nothing about consumers that require them to emit greenhouse gasses, but they do so because it's the cheapest.

>they will proceed to destroy the environment because short term profits are more important than long term survival.

they won't emit greenhouse gasses if there's a market for non greenhouse gas emitting products. See for instance, all the GMO-free/organic/vegan/free-range/fair trade products at your local supermarket. I'm not sure about all the labels, but I know for a fact that organic products have better margins than conventional ones.

> nothing about consumers that require them to emit greenhouse gasses, but they do so because it's the cheapest.

Profit maximization requires them to use the cheapest method if they can get away with it.

> they won't emit greenhouse gasses if there's a market for non greenhouse gas emitting products

Except for pretty much the entire market of products that exist currently, you mean?

> I know for a fact that organic products have better margins than conventional ones

Right, because the 5-10% of consumers that are able to afford it and are shamed into “personal carbon footprint” mindset choose to take on economic harm in order to produce even more profits for the same scammy corporations that often own those “eco-friendly” brands.

It’s mind boggling you don’t see anything wrong with all this.

>Profit maximization requires them to use the cheapest method if they can get away with it.

well, not really. Just like consumers can be shamed into buying fair trade coffee rather than the non-fair trade coffee, corporations can be shamed into being zero emission. There's quite a few wealthy tech companies that do just that.

>Except for pretty much the entire market of products that exist currently, you mean?

And who's on the other side of those markets? Are consumers buying oil because oil companies has drilled them out of the ground and need to unload them, or do consumers want oil (and don't care much where it comes from) and oil companies are fulfilling that demand?

>Right, because the 5-10% of consumers that are able to afford it and are shamed into “personal carbon footprint” mindset choose to take on economic harm in order to produce even more profits for the same scammy corporations that often own those “eco-friendly” brands.

>It’s mind boggling you don’t see anything wrong with all this.

Flip side of this is that 90-95% of consumers can't afford it and/or don't care about the environment that much to pay for zero carbon gasoline or whatever, but you're unhappy with that and you want the government to step in and force them to switch to zero carbon gas.

> Blah blah consumers want oil

Do you drink oil? Do you eat it? Does your organism require it, so that you create this supposed INHERENT DEMAND FOR OIL? Of course not, but given how dishonest you’ve been so far, I foresee you trying to find some roundabout way to argue even that position.

> you're unhappy with that and you want the government to step in and force them to switch to zero carbon gas.

No, I want government to reduce profits of those who benefit off destroying the environment and use that money to subsidize environmentally friendly produce for consumers who wouldn’t be able to afford it.

>Do you drink oil? Do you eat it? Does your organism require it, so that you create this supposed INHERENT DEMAND FOR OIL?

Does my body need oil? No. Do I want a convenient and cheap mode of transportation that allows me to get me from my white picket suburban house (which I also want) to other places I have to be? Yes. Do I also want a cheap source of energy to power various creature comforts in my white picket suburban house? Also yes.

>No, I want government to reduce profits of those who benefit off destroying the environment and use that money to subsidize environmentally friendly produce for consumers who wouldn’t be able to afford it.

"We're going to [do thing to fix problem] and make [maligned entity] pay for it!"

> Do I want a convenient and cheap mode of transportation that allows me to get me from my white picket suburban house (which I also want) to other places I have to be? Yes. Do I also want a cheap source of energy to power various creature comforts in my white picket suburban house? Also yes.

Neither of those requires unsustainable energy production.

> We're going to [do thing to fix problem] and make [maligned entity] pay for it!

Got other ideas to address externalities? Or are you just like all libertarians going to pretend they don’t exist until it’s too late and nothing can be done about it?

>Neither of those requires unsustainable energy production.

Being able to fuel up your SUV without having to spend $10/gal does. The average HN user making $150k/year salary might be able to absorb such a bump in fuel price, but not the average american.

>> We're going to [do thing to fix problem] and make [maligned entity] pay for it!

>Got other ideas to address externalities? Or are you just like all libertarians going to pretend they don’t exist until it’s too late and nothing can be done about it?

The part I'm making fun of isn't "tax carbon to internalize externalities". The part I'm making fun of is the thought that you can do it without making the end-consumer pay for it.

> Except profit maximization, you mean?

You're playing into exactly what they are saying and you don't even see it, wow.

Enlighten me

Except the corporation has visibility into their production methods. I, the consumer, standing in a store looking at a tomato, have no way of knowing how it was grown, where it came from, how it got to my store, how the store is powering the lights to show me the tomato. All I want is a tomato. The fact it got drove across an entire country to get to me is conveniently hidden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com