undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAerroon2y ago0 comments

Sure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this?

What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline?

I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes.

People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).

0 comments

Aachen2y ago

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme poverty to 10%, despite going from 2 to 8 billion inhabitants)

I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have

asynchronous2y ago

Because it’s extremely, EXTREMELY difficult to map Montana’s carbon emissions (mind you, one of the least populated states in the country) to actual real impact on climate change in the future.

Environmentalism used to be about direct impact - contaminating waterways and the like. Moving to these more esoteric issues makes measuring and showing impact near impossible, and also makes people care less.

phpisthebest2y ago

Because many of us understand human history, and understand that we humans will resolve this by technological advancement often at the time the need arises.

Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve

More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a few, and hold back actual technological progress for decades (see Ethanol as an example)

For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world as we know it, always 10 years off before we are all dead. having lived many decades now, hearing these 10 year predictions often, and seeing them never come well color me unamused, and unmoved by this latest call to action.

Instead i choose to believe we will over come the challenges in the future has we have the ones from the past. With technological advancement, and market economics. Not government

Aachen2y ago

> Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem

Literally the opposite of what I said

> For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world

I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve and we reduce to a much smaller population while dealing with the fallout and having to rebuild. You may want to look into the consequences of global warming before judging whether it's similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about

> what you perceive to be a problem

If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. Can't help people that don't do logic

1 more reply

worik2y ago

> maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that.

Very unhelpful

Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody

We must be kind, to make things better

AerroonOP2y ago

Because I live in a country like Lithuania. I know what basic things being too expensive to afford is like. I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world.

>Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have

Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

Aachen2y ago

> I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world.

I don't know if that's supposed to be about me, but I'm not from "murica". You and I are nearly neighbors, only separated by Poland. But I'm not proud of my country either: I vote for what I think will help us get better, but about 70% votes for a "let it burn" party

> Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

Although we at least have some tax on some of the fuels (kerosine being a notable omission), ours is also not about discouragement, as far as I know. Fuel prices are dominated by market effects, not by discouragement, and evidently the high market price is not sufficient to make the difference that would be needed.

Maybe it's similar to movie/software piracy: not a pricing problem but a service problem (as Gabe Newell said). Having realistic alternatives rather than prohibitive pricing

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Aachen2y ago

asynchronous2y ago

Because it’s extremely, EXTREMELY difficult to map Montana’s carbon emissions (mind you, one of the least populated states in the country) to actual real impact on climate change in the future.

phpisthebest2y ago

Because many of us understand human history, and understand that we humans will resolve this by technological advancement often at the time the need arises.

More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a few, and hold back actual technological progress for decades (see Ethanol as an example)

Instead i choose to believe we will over come the challenges in the future has we have the ones from the past. With technological advancement, and market economics. Not government

Aachen2y ago

> Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem

Literally the opposite of what I said

> For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world

> what you perceive to be a problem

If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. Can't help people that don't do logic

1 more reply

worik2y ago

> maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that.

Very unhelpful

Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody

We must be kind, to make things better

AerroonOP2y ago

Because I live in a country like Lithuania. I know what basic things being too expensive to afford is like. I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world.

>Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have

Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

Aachen2y ago

> I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world.

> Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

Maybe it's similar to movie/software piracy: not a pricing problem but a service problem (as Gabe Newell said). Having realistic alternatives rather than prohibitive pricing

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse