Oil money funded think tank finally gets it!

Maybe capitalism needs to suck it up and pull itself up by its bootstraps instead of needing subsidized fossil fuels. /s

75

↑ This, but without the /s.

In particular, we need to protect the free market by creating a carbon tax to compensate for fossil fuels' negative externalities and level the playing field for "greener" competitors.

Not taxing carbon is anti-capitalist protectionism.

22
- That or have the state stop giving money to corpos that definitely don't need it, or by breaking up monopolies just so fair competition can be a thing.
  
  Seriously, thinking that America's system is capitalist is just as stupid as thinking it's the land of the free
  
  6

You don't need to end capitalism to help the climate.

Just properly regulate it. It's a tool just like every other economic system, and shouldn't be hoisted to a higher pedestal. Every system that fails fails because regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption. Capitalism's only strength is it took longer to get there because all the power was spread out for awhile.

43

That's a pretty shallow take on historic economics.

Capitalism had a role to serve as the transition out of feudal economics.

Now it's time to do better.

23
- Better as in what though?
  
  We've used every economic system by itself, and the only really successful version is a combination of them with proper regulation. What else do you do?
  
  2
- So it's better just because the guy who created it said so?
  
  Like half of Marx's theories are gross oversimplifications that are definitely biased towards his point
  
  -2
- Well communism has been tried and it didn't work. It was trounced by the capitalist world which, nevertheless, adopted some socialist ideas, especially in Europe.
  
  So no, it's not time to do better. Communism isn't the next step after capitalism. It clearly isn't remotely capable of competing with capitalism in the long term. No matter how many thousands of pages of theoretical wishful thinking people have written about it, if it doesn't work in the real world it doesn't work. It always ends up in authoritarian, repressive regimes that are economic backwaters. To the extent that they desire secular growth they have to open up markets like China did, and simply become authoritarian and somewhat economically free.
  
  -4
regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption

And vice versa! Corruption leads to lack of regulation. It's a shit circular dance that I feel like we're doomed to repeat regardless of the economic system we pick.

16
- Corruption nearly always leads to more regulation but targeted against competitors.
  
  3
- Lack of regulation? I'd say it creates even more regulation to keep corruption going
  
  0
Agreed. Capitalism is a horrible master but a good slave. Just like we regulated the other forces of nature (like fire) to harness them in our favour, so should we harness market forces to work for us.

3
Capitalism works well when there is plenty of potential for growth, but when there are non-monetary reasons (such as the literal end of ecosystems favorable to human life) that require adjustments or even degrowth, it quickly devolves into feudalism - and the problem is that we do not have the means to quickly stop CO2 emissions without tightening our belts in energy consumption, which in turn requires some degree of degrowth.

2
You don’t need to end capitalism to help the climate. Just properly regulate it.

Except that politicians (i.e. those that would be doing the regulating) all have a price, and for oil barons no price is too high; and bribing is still magnitudes cheaper than stopping the destruction of the environment.

It's a tool just like every other economic system, and shouldn’t be hoisted to a higher pedestal.

If it's not objectively better nor special, why not try something more equitable that doesn't siphon 99% of all resources to the ~~aristocracy~~ elite and leaves everyone else fighting for the crumbs?

Why keep using a system that prescribes that the hungry should starve if they can't afford food even though we already produce more than enough to feed the whole planet?

1
Yeah, we need regulation but no direct intervention like the state is currently doing to protect monopolies.

Like, make some rules to keep competition fair but don't go to specific companies to protect them

-1
Regulation? Sounds like communism to me

-1
- Regulating is definitely not like a command economy
  
  1

Is there a lemmy equivalent to /r/SelfAwareWolves? Because this fits.

39

Make it and crosspost!

5
- Ah, it exists: !selfawarewolves@lemmy.ml
  
  7

selfawarewolves material

33

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It's just that capital would grow slower. You can have a green capitalism. It just that no one invested in that

22

The problem is externalities. Companies have to be held responsible for their damage.

If governments held companies liable for the full cost of fixing their damage to humanity and earth I honestly don't know how many would be left.

19
- I'm sorry but you missed the memo that polluting is free
  
  5
"Green capitalism" only exists if green energy is more profitable than climate-harming alternatives

Given the multiple decades of oil and gas infrastructure, that's not realistic.

In theory, consumer demand for green energy could make this a reality, but it would have to be a massive swing. And in practice, most consumers will go for the cheapest option - in many cases, given their resources, they have to.

The other way that green energy could become more profitable is through heavy government regulation. So... yeah you could have a green 'capitalism' if the State manages the market, and withstands the corporate pressure to withdraw. But that has literally happened nowhere

I suppose hypothetically you could argue that IF a company invested heavily in green technology and IF that investment resulted in a cheaper form of energy, AND that technology also applied to the supply chain, then we could have green capitalism. But i mean that's highly speculative and it also would be entirely a coincidence

4

Permanently Deleted

18

But as you said, activists often use climate change as an excuse for "overthrowing capitalism" and replacing it with a "dictatorship of the proletariat", and I think this tweet is actually referencing this rather than thinking it to be the logical conclusion

-2
- Permanently Deleted
  
  3

Permanently Deleted

17

I've only recently come across PragerU on Youtube, and ever since I have only been rolling my eyes at what they say.

16

They're yet another cancer on society...

6
The mothers days day after I had a baby, they sent me a book in the mail about a boy and a dog (I think the dogs name was Otto) celebrating mothers. It was weird but historically accurate. They said that one of the founding fathers mother was a good mother because she taught the founding fathers the bible. Im not sure what to do with the book... Donate it?

5
- I love animals. I hate mosquitoes. If one gets in my house I'll hunt it down and smash it gleefully. Then apologize and tell it I feel bad because it didn't choose to be born a mosquito
  
  Same for this book. I love books and feel they should be respected, but perhaps this one is like a mosquito and maybe should be disposed of into the recycling
  
  9
- Burn it.
  
  6
- Send them another book, "The Wright Brothers". At least their mom was an awesome lady, a goddamn mechanical engineer, and a college graduate. She taught them how to bang on and tinker with stuff and ta-da now we have airplanes.
  
  2
This was the final straw for me to finally get off FB, toooooooo many (unhinged) "friends" quoting PU as facts & citing them as a source. Pure propaganda garbage.

2

"Think tank" as in circlejerk.

15

aaannnd?

12

Best comedy website ever

9

patriarchy too, pal.. might as well learn it now..

3

Permanently Deleted

1

Uh huh

1

Same energy

1

They say that like it's a bad thing.

1

Why the hell are gekte posts being reposted here

-2

I recently switched to lemmy and now sort out my old reddit downloads. As I cane by this picture I thought I could post it and I think it was a good thing, looking at the discussion about socialism and library economy in the comments.

3

Well if the people who really claim that humanity is heading for extinction really thought so in their heart of hearts, they'd be willing to make compromises and work with the capitalist system and those who disagree with them economically to steer civilization away from mass extinction. They'd say "Ok, fine, you're a libertarian (or whatever), how can we come together and make a deal to turn this ship again."

And yet they don't.

-5

Hard to find a common ground when the other person is not believing in climat change or that we have to do anything and it will not magically sort it self out.

6
- Really? Because most of the large countries of the world are very much trying to cut emissions. But They're not communists. They're by and large neo-liberal.
  
  -1
Does compromise with a death cult ever work? Whether they're racists, fascists, religious zealots, capitalist profiteers, or any other group that devalues human life, it doesn't seem like compromise works or is even a possibility.

6
- Really? Ancient civilizations didn't much value human life. They didn't emit much CO2 at all. They're very much two separate things.
  
  As I said to another person here, most of the neo-liberal governments of the world are very much trying to cut emissions. They value human life much more tham ancient civilizations or modern communist countries have.
  
  0
No one listenend to those people, the issue has been known at least for the last 50 years, there was enough time for compromises, but nearly nobody cared.

So now we're here.

If I believed that our current system will be the cause for the extinction of my species, how could I still make a compromise with someone who still lives and thinks like it's 1960?

5
That reply is, frankly, both stupid and ignorant.

5

Permanently Deleted

-18

What's a tankie?

2
- Originally, it was used to describe those who defended the use of tanks to stop the Hungarian revolution 1956 (i think)
  
  Now its used to describe those that align with Marxism-leninism (also i think)
  
  2
- Loaded question is going to get loaded answers but:
  
  Marxist-identifying people who like to glorify oppressive regimes, usually Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Fascists disguised as communists.
  
  1
Lmao classic political elitist logic: if you’re not going after the biggest problem directly you’re doing it wrong

Talk about a smooth brain lol

1
- Permanently Deleted
  
  -1
Can you provide a source for China being most polluting per cap?

I know China has more pollution but also they're the most populous which means they'll pollute a lot.

But China is far from most polluting per cap.

Qatar is #1 With China's carbon pollution per capita being HALF of that of the USA

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-marimekko?tab=table

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=table&time=2021..2021

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

1