Why mandate how emissions are cut, instead of heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?
I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.
The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.
communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say.
The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!
So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess.
Similar with taxing damages to Earth.
You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation.
Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor.
On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.
>with not a single example in favor.
Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.
I didn't say they were. Go back and read it again.
> Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship.
No, it already was a totalitarian government from the start. Also Soviet Russia is an excellent example of the failures of communism, citing it in support is not helping your argument.
I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.
The truth is that there is not enough good data, I would like to see some examples of countries that were not under sanctions or under a cold war or had some insane dictator leading them.
> I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.
Don't even get me started on the story of the two Koreas. Everything you need to build an open and shut case against communism can be found in the recent and well recorded history of those two countries.
You can object to my "superiority complex" but at the end of the day I'm still right and your still wrong. This is not one of those things where reasonable people can have differing opinions.
Btw China is a big economy and many of HNers tell me that their are communists and the party dictates everything etc, so you need some other skillful argument to attribute all the good in China to US and capitalism and of-course blame all the bad on communism.
Also I personally believe that most of us understand by communism is not superior to the systems we see in Western Europe, my objection was to your bad argument that there are good clean data where you can extract clear conclusions.
I'm getting less and less sure you're qualified to judge that as we go.
> Btw China is a big economy and many of HNers tell me that their are communists and the party dictates everything etc, so you need some other skillful argument to attribute all the good in China to US and capitalism and of-course blame all the bad on communism.
They're economically very capitalist with stock markets, free enterprise, billionaires etc. Having a totalitarian government has not been all bad for them, which is not an endorsement of such a system. However, communism very clearly failed for China, and the story did not change until they abandoned it - at which point that had a success story every bit as impressive as that of South Korea.
> Also I personally believe that most of us understand by communism is not superior to the systems we see in Western Europe, my objection was to your bad argument that there are good clean data where you can extract clear conclusions.
How much more data do you need to see before you can have a clear conclusion? You've got literally 40 case studies, roughly 20 of them independent "experiments", and 100% failure rate. Seriously, it's case closed already. This is not something reasonable people can disagree on. It's the economic equivalent of trying to argue the Earth is flat.
Garbage In Garbage Out
you want to prove that green color is better then red, so you put a rat in a green box, a rat in a red box, then you starve the rat in the red box and give a ton of food to the green rat.
Then like a "genius self claimed scientist" you claim to prove that this is a valid experiment that proves that green is better then red.
You've made up your mind without looking at the evidence, as you've already demonstrated your ignorance of history, and somehow think that qualifies you to reject all of it - without having even considered it. You've proved my point rather nicely I think.
Would be more simple if you find the perfect example from those 40 and let's talk that one.
Is that a troll? See my comment below.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...
Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises.
Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.
Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.
(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)
We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.
The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
That's a lot of money to fight pirates.