Plan B is that you will be a potential food source for the worlds 2500 billionaires in bunkers.
The article does not justify why a carbon tax would not work, or at least be an important part of the solution. If we are missing our current targets, what measures can we take to do better? For example, how would increasing the carbon tax by 50% affect our emissions? Despair doesn’t get us closer to our goals.
The easiest example as to why the carbon tax is stupid:
The carbon tax was introduced in BC under Gordon Campbell’s hyper conservative and extreme pro oil government.If it was ever going to accomplish anything other than looking good and giving the oil and gas industry a tax break, they wouldn’t have done it.
The concept of a carbon tax isn’t forcing oil and gas companies to do immediate things, it’s just them paying the logging industry to plant some trees in a place that was already logged and was going to be replaced and logged again in the future.
There are multiple different ways to tax carbon. The current federal carbon tax does not include rebates for planting trees, so that loophole doesn’t exist.
Plan B?
I knew this would happen. I’m still just following plan A.
Basically I renounced the idea of having kids, I prioritize my life over my work and try to live my life to its fullest, and help anyone I can along the way and just hang on until the end of the world.
prioritize my life over my work
And holy shit do I get shamed for it.
Don’t you care about the company or moving up in the organization?
Fuck no. I care about paying off my insane mortgage, keeping the lights on and having time to do what the fuck I want.
lol exactly.
I want to show up, do work, get paid, be left alone.
I’ll do really good work, and take pride it in because that’s just who I am, but I don’t want to do overtime, I don’t want to go above and beyond for the company, I don’t want to play office politics, I don’t want to jockey for higher roles. None of it.
Show up, get paid.
I don’t want to do overtime, I don’t want to go above and beyond for the company, I don’t want to play office politics, I don’t want to jockey for higher roles. None of it.
Because doing those things is no different than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
This ship floating among the stars is going to go down in a very bad way during the next 15-35 years. We are going to see the planetary ecosystem collapse, with devastating effects to the human population. There are some very conservative estimates by climate scientists working together with demographers and climate-aware economists that are suggesting that mass famines trigger cascading infrastructure collapses throughout our civilization by the 2040s, with a commensurate drop in human population of at least 40%, and up to an 80-95% drop by 2070.
Populations don’t experience overshoot-related drops of that magnitude without running a very real risk of total extinction. It may take another century beyond 2070 to finish us off, as small populations are bound to linger on in the remaining habitable regions near our poles, but I would be very shocked if humanity still existed in the year 2200.
This nihilist doomer shit is both highly speculative, and just as bad as denialism for why we can’t have nice things. In fact, they are just 2 stages of the exact same mentality. It’s not real, it’s not human caused, and we can’t do anything about it anyway. All the same picture; all the same motivation.
I disagree.
I’m not a doomer because the problem is technically intractable (more on that later). Nor because I can’t do enough to change our trajectory. Nor because we (society as a whole, including corporations and governments) can’t do anything to change our trajectory.
Nope, I’m a doomer because dealing with this problem is a social problem with its foundations in evolution. It has not and never had been a technical problem. We have the technologies and have had many of them for 50 or even 100 years.
There was more than enough evidence by 1970 to support hypotheses going back to the 1800s; more than enough to justify global initiatives. Yet, by c. 1980, that evidence was being not just studiously ignored, but treated as nonsense. And that programme of dismissal didn’t just continue, but grew ever more elaborate and normalized.
There were good ideas and technologies available in 1970 that, had they been acted upon and deployed would likely have greatly mitigated and possibly solved the problem. At the very least, we would have been on the right path 50 years ago instead of arguing about the best way to deal with what our inaction has turned into a crisis.
Now, at 67, I’m starting to think that the problem might be technically intractable for the simple reason that we’ve waited too long. But even if that is completely wrong, it’s clear to me that it is not just socially intractable, but impossible.
While individual humans may have the necessary foresight and behaviour, collectively, as a species, we simply don’t have what it takes to see and understand and act when there are compounding effects. Whether it’s savings, debts, or ecological and environmental impact, our poor little brains cannot reliably deal with anything other than pure linearity as applied to small numbers and tightly constrained systems. Nor, it seems, are we capable of reliably deferring to those who have managed to acquire the necessary skills.
In the same ways that the very nature of a nonhuman species can lead to population collapse or extinction under changing circumstances, so are we doomed to play out a similar script. I just didn’t anticipate that we’d hit the wall while there were still just 4 digits in our year or that we’d be at risk of succumbing to something so simple.
[ ] Climate change isn’t real. [ ] Climate change is part of a natural cycle and not related to humans. [x] Climate change is caused by humans, but we can’t do anything about it for whatever reasons. Note how all 3 lead to the same actual behaviour, and that benefits the very same people, but the first one works on conservatives and the third one works on liberals. You’ve fallen for the same gambit. There’s a big-ass sliding scale between “fuck it” and “techno utopia” both on climate mitigation and adaptation. The next 100 years are going to be hard, yeah, but those 3 propoganda tacts are designed to just make some rich twits richer before we all hit the wall.
We’re not following the plan because everyone else isn’t.
They’re not because we aren’t. See how that works?
How about we do the right thing because it’s the right thing?
I’ve always said that… Canadians are HUGE CO2 emitters, simply because of our geography and climate. We need to put in place a carbon tax that is low, but applies to damn near everything. People who consume more pay more. Invest the tax revenue in things that minimize CO2 emissions - public transit, home efficiency retrofits, subsidized higher standards for building codes, etc. Every year the carbon tax goes up, and every year the benefits get expanded.
I’m not a fucking genius, why can’t anyone else do this?
No, we’re huge emitters because the oil industry isn’t properly held in check.
Alberta and Saskatchewan on their own are about half of the emissions for the entire country. For actual per person emissions, we’re in reality slightly better than China.
We should also halt all oil subsidies as well. I know cheap energy fuels the economy, but we don’t have that luxury anymore, and all products from regions that don’t ALSO suspend O&G subsidies and levy carbon taxes should have tariffs applied, and those tariffs added to the carbon tax fund.
Is there any proof that the oil and gas subsidies make it cheaper?
Price of a liter of gas in
NYC is $1.07 US
Dallas Texas is $0.64
Seattle is $1.29
LA is $1.18Toronto is $1.08
Calgary is $1.00
Vancouver is $1.31
Halifax is $1.35London England is $1.88
Berlin is $2.08Fun fact, Calgary, Vancouver and Seattle should all be the same price. The latter two get product for free from a Canadian government built pipeline, that dates from the 1950s.
