We should not expect companies to choose a less immediately profitable route that ensures long term sustainability. That’s just not what they are incentivized to do on their own. Consumers can sometimes influence those incentives, but there is not always enough market choice to put that kind of pressure on corporate behavior. Instead, if there is a significant public interest in such a change, such as with climate change from burning fossil fuels, it is up to governments to change those incentives.
If green energy is less profitable than fossil fuels, the government can cap production, increase taxes, rework trade deals, add regulations, etc. to limit the profitability of fossil fuels. They can also increase the profitability of green energies by providing grants into research, tax breaks to producers, tax incentives to adopters, subsidize installation and maintenance for green energy production, fast track infrastructure, etc.
If fossil fuels companies can make an easy buck by switching to green energy, they will or someone else will outcompete them. But while they can still profit off more off of the thing that is worse for the world, they’ll still do it becuase the profit is the goal. Always. Duh. Welcome to the horrific consequences of unfettered capitalism.
We should not expect companies to choose a less immediately profitable route that ensures long term sustainability.
We should expect that. It is not that “companies” are creatures with their own will. Humans own them, humans work for them and it is humans making decisions and we should expect them to do better for humankind.
I refuse to buy into the boys are boys companies are companies saying, it is changeable. So many businesses have no whatsoever problems to adapt, but the people leading these WANT to adapt, they want to plan for the long run, they want their business to make money and do the right thing and it is possible.
Yes the government needs to step in with laws and force them to do the right thing, but still we need to call the humans out that decide by free will to f*ck us all over and use a business to do it, again the business does nothing, it is humans who do it because they want to, they are not forced to do it. That’s why we should not say BP does this, we should name the responsible people behind the business name and hold them responsible one by one.
The real answer is that the people who are in control of these companies, the people who generally succeed in business enough to take control of these businesses, are not the kind of people who understand, believe in, or care about climate change. On the whole, they are more selfish, deluded, and short-sighted than the average person because those are the kind of people that are good at making a quick buck for the shareholders, getting a big bonus, and then bailing out when when things get hard. They’re also the kind of people who will virtue signal their intent to do something popular to see if it helps their bottom line and then quietly back off when it doesn’t.
If green energy is less profitable than fossil fuels, the government can cap production, increase taxes, rework trade deals, add regulations, etc. to limit the profitability of fossil fuels.
Pretty sure all we have to do is cut their subsidies…
Or stop building new pipelines for them…
Or stop opening more federal land up to drilling leases…
We dont need to do things to make fossil fuels less peofitable, we just have to stop all the shit we keep doing to make it more profitable.
That’s just not what they are incentivized to do on their own. Consumers can sometimes influence those incentives, but there is not always enough market choice to put that kind of pressure on corporate behavior.
So why doesn’t the same apply to governments? If the alternatives aren’t there we can’t vote for them.
If everyone refused to pay their gas bill. BP would collapse in a week. But of course there’d never be such action because people don’t care it’s all just virtue signalling.
Apparently we’re supposed to be in a ‘climate emergency’ that represents an ‘existential threat’ to humanity, and the best humanity can muster as a response is a very strong leafleting campaign.
If it’s really an actual threat to the survival of humanity then just storm BP headquarters and threaten to burn the place down if they don’t stop funding new oil. No one will, might break a nail.
Partly because half of the people don’t believe it’s an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.
But really, ultimately, it’s not the fossil fuels companies creating the demand, it’s the lack of alternatives. So burning those companies to the ground doesn’t do anything to the demand for their product except skyrocket it. Viable alternatives need to be created, which is slower, more boring, and vitally important work, as are the majority of the most important functions of society. Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need, if it is to be done by a private enterprise.
half of the people don’t believe it’s an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.
Yeah, pretty much my point. Hardly an ‘existential crisis’. Screaming about the end of civilisation and then starting a leafleting campaign to prevent it is pretty much textbook virtue signalling - the ‘signal’ is out of proportion to the act.
burning those companies to the ground doesn’t do anything to the demand for their product
I can guarantee it would cause more discussion in the (ashes of the) boardroom than a strongly worded letter to The Times. And we don’t have to worry about demand. Just refuse to pay them for it until they provide a better alternative.
Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need
Why ‘monetary’?. Why not violence? Civil disobedience? Strike action? Rude gestures? Not inviting them to your dinner party?
Why does the incentive have to be money? Isn’t that pretty much what got us into this mess?
We should not expect companies to choose a less immediately profitable route that ensures long term sustainability. That’s just not what they are incentivized to do on their own. Consumers can sometimes influence those incentives, but there is not always enough market choice to put that kind of pressure on corporate behavior. Instead, if there is a significant public interest in such a change, such as with climate change from burning fossil fuels, it is up to governments to change those incentives.
If green energy is less profitable than fossil fuels, the government can cap production, increase taxes, rework trade deals, add regulations, etc. to limit the profitability of fossil fuels. They can also increase the profitability of green energies by providing grants into research, tax breaks to producers, tax incentives to adopters, subsidize installation and maintenance for green energy production, fast track infrastructure, etc.
If fossil fuels companies can make an easy buck by switching to green energy, they will or someone else will outcompete them. But while they can still profit off more off of the thing that is worse for the world, they’ll still do it becuase the profit is the goal. Always. Duh. Welcome to the horrific consequences of unfettered capitalism.
We should expect that. It is not that “companies” are creatures with their own will. Humans own them, humans work for them and it is humans making decisions and we should expect them to do better for humankind.
I refuse to buy into the
boys are boyscompanies are companies saying, it is changeable. So many businesses have no whatsoever problems to adapt, but the people leading these WANT to adapt, they want to plan for the long run, they want their business to make money and do the right thing and it is possible.Yes the government needs to step in with laws and force them to do the right thing, but still we need to call the humans out that decide by free will to f*ck us all over and use a business to do it, again the business does nothing, it is humans who do it because they want to, they are not forced to do it. That’s why we should not say BP does this, we should name the responsible people behind the business name and hold them responsible one by one.
The real answer is that the people who are in control of these companies, the people who generally succeed in business enough to take control of these businesses, are not the kind of people who understand, believe in, or care about climate change. On the whole, they are more selfish, deluded, and short-sighted than the average person because those are the kind of people that are good at making a quick buck for the shareholders, getting a big bonus, and then bailing out when when things get hard. They’re also the kind of people who will virtue signal their intent to do something popular to see if it helps their bottom line and then quietly back off when it doesn’t.
Pretty sure all we have to do is cut their subsidies…
Or stop building new pipelines for them…
Or stop opening more federal land up to drilling leases…
We dont need to do things to make fossil fuels less peofitable, we just have to stop all the shit we keep doing to make it more profitable.
Yes, i meant to include s line about just ending all the current subsidies and infrastructure support already given for fossil fuels
So why doesn’t the same apply to governments? If the alternatives aren’t there we can’t vote for them.
If everyone refused to pay their gas bill. BP would collapse in a week. But of course there’d never be such action because people don’t care it’s all just virtue signalling.
Apparently we’re supposed to be in a ‘climate emergency’ that represents an ‘existential threat’ to humanity, and the best humanity can muster as a response is a very strong leafleting campaign.
If it’s really an actual threat to the survival of humanity then just storm BP headquarters and threaten to burn the place down if they don’t stop funding new oil. No one will, might break a nail.
Partly because half of the people don’t believe it’s an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.
But really, ultimately, it’s not the fossil fuels companies creating the demand, it’s the lack of alternatives. So burning those companies to the ground doesn’t do anything to the demand for their product except skyrocket it. Viable alternatives need to be created, which is slower, more boring, and vitally important work, as are the majority of the most important functions of society. Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need, if it is to be done by a private enterprise.
Yeah, pretty much my point. Hardly an ‘existential crisis’. Screaming about the end of civilisation and then starting a leafleting campaign to prevent it is pretty much textbook virtue signalling - the ‘signal’ is out of proportion to the act.
I can guarantee it would cause more discussion in the (ashes of the) boardroom than a strongly worded letter to The Times. And we don’t have to worry about demand. Just refuse to pay them for it until they provide a better alternative.
Why ‘monetary’?. Why not violence? Civil disobedience? Strike action? Rude gestures? Not inviting them to your dinner party?
Why does the incentive have to be money? Isn’t that pretty much what got us into this mess?