zlacker

[return to "Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII"]
1. just_s+nm[view] [source] 2021-01-22 20:17:44
>>LinuxB+(OP)
The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years.

It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

◧◩
2. rmk+AD[view] [source] 2021-01-22 22:11:05
>>just_s+nm
We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have been given away already by governments) that will be paid by generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down.

I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissions will rebound and exceed peaks as people 'catch up' on travel, including simply visiting near and dear ones, that they have missed out on.

◧◩◪
3. hcurti+PD[view] [source] 2021-01-22 22:12:48
>>rmk+AD
And watching so many small businesses in my small town close, that was not at all a thing I hope climate change policy replicates.
◧◩◪◨
4. rmk+QF[view] [source] 2021-01-22 22:25:25
>>hcurti+PD
One can wish, but I know that there is huge pressure on the current administration to appease the left wing of the party. Keystone XL is canceled, and the US has rejoined the Paris agreement on the first day of Biden's Presidency. A multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal that will further saddle future generations with debt is looking likely at this point. Whether it will provide the benefits it purports to do is far from certain.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. hurago+qG[view] [source] 2021-01-22 22:29:19
>>rmk+QF
Trillions used for the GND is debt but trillions sunk into tax cuts for the top 1% is just good economics.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. rmk+KP[view] [source] 2021-01-22 23:30:52
>>hurago+qG
Incurring debt != Foregoing revenue via income tax
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. JoBrad+eS[view] [source] 2021-01-22 23:45:30
>>rmk+KP
They have the same outcome, though, relative to future debts. Isn't this a distinction without a difference?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. rmk+GV[view] [source] 2021-01-23 00:05:55
>>JoBrad+eS
Once you incur debt, it must be serviced. If you forego revenue via a couple of channels (income tax, inheritance tax), you can either (a) raise debt to replace the revenue you lost or (b) provide incentives so that the revenue foregone is invested (efficiently and judiciously) to spur growth, which brings in revenue or (c) raise revenue via other channels. You can do some combination of the above. The point being, you have fewer options at hand once you incur debt, because default has dire consequences (ask Russia or Argentina), and printing money also has less desirable consequences (indiscriminate tax on everyone including those on fixed incomes and savers).
[go to top]