The article essentially claims that nearly all major industries would be unprofitable is forced to pay their externalities. Great! Let’s shut it all down, let everyone gradually die off and then we’ll finally reach the sustainable utopia these people seek.
Citation needed.
Yes, they're a favorite. But I always thought that it was because economic models are usually simple, closed systems and that's a trivial, approachable way to show that they're wrong.
Similar to finding "bugs" with provably correct functional code. Wherever it touches the real world, it's no longer simple math and something hinky's bound to happen.
In the face of a actually having to price in externalities, entire industries may end up with fundamental changes.
Even the more complicated land value tax often just is a constant percentage of the land value (85%). The question is what the land value is but even then it is often just using some average prices based on recent transactions with small, less than 100% adjustment factors depending on local factors. The model complexity again is constrained and does not allow infinite complexity. The conclusions you can draw from a land value tax don't go beyond the money the government spends on maintaining and building new infrastructure.
My point is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can arrive at “rational” decisions about resource use by reducing everything to accounting.
Have you any idea what should replace rational decisions and reducing everything to accounting? I cannot imagine what the other way may be, but I would like to know.
40% with a ridiculously small amount of green areas. If that's the case, we'll, then, every CO2 emission is easily absorbed by the rest of the green areas in the world.
(Less sarcastically, please share the source of your claims. Obviously they're wrong, but I'd like to know how they're wrong.)
Nobody wants to live in the world envisioned by climate activists. That is why activists have made no progress in the last 50 years.
It’s also a strange argument to make that activists need to convince you that drinking contaminated water, breathing polluted air and ruining the natural world for profit isn’t a sustainable vision for the future.
Activists aren’t trying to sell you a product they are trying to warn you. Holding them to the showmanship antics of any given CEO seems misguided.
- OK but what's your vision for this issue
- I'm going to spray water on it, also you should stand farther away
- Aren't you just being reflexively contrarian?
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/tesla-tsla-q4-2022-vehicle-d...