5 ms·

Unfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown. https://www.reuters

by 0xddd 6y ago

Unfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-pollution/china-sees-post-lockdown-rise-in-air-pollution-study-idUSKBN22U09F https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...

throwaway888abc 6y ago
Oh, F*ck :( Greedy human race Signed: bleeding coral reef with sad penguin
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  It's the tragedy of the commons. The only way to change it is for local/state/national governments to remove the tragedy.
  - zapita 6y ago
    But nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Which means large corporations get to influence policies, even without any lobbying. "Dear senator, what do you mean those environmental protection regulations apply to us? The regulations of the neighbour country $x, that also invited us to build our 10 000 jobs worth plant on their soil, are nowhere near as onerous. We might need to take them up on their offer. Perhaps at least you can cut us a tax break?"
      - throwaway888abc 6y ago
        Yup, the rationale inside knows that this is difficult problem to tackle. I let the hearth speak for small moment.
      - akie 6y ago
        "Well, dear corporation, if you want to sell your products to our citizens, you have to play by our rules. We'll let you know that your direct competitor already agreed to these rules yesterday."
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        "I'm sorry Senator, you must be confused. Our products meet the health&safety standards prescribed by yours as well as international regulations in this region. You cannot, legally, stop stores from reselling our products, nor you can prevent customers from ordering them on-line. Meanwhile, if you're satisfied with the smaller plant of 2000 jobs of our competitor, we'll happily set up shop at your neighbour's. It was nice dealing with you. I hope you don't mind if I mention your name at the press conference we'll call soon to announce signing of the deal for our new plant with your neighbour."
        akie 6y ago
        "We have and will use our authority to prevent the sale or re-sale of products that do not conform to the rule of law. Please be so kind to mention my name at your press conference, so that my citizens know their government stands up for their rights."
        akie 6y ago
        I know that the above response might seem like a pipe-dream to some, but let me assure you that there are governments and government officials that do stand up for the rule of law, and that are not easily bought by the highest bidder.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Yeah, but what I meant by my response is that, in this hypothetical scenario, the products themselves are fine. Nice, clean, safe, recyclable, whatnot. It's the manufacturing process that's polluting. You can't ban a product from being sold in your country on the grounds that manufacturing it in another country is an ecological disaster. Meanwhile, all those jobs are highly desirable (not just for your personal benefit as a politician, but also for the benefit of your constituents and your nation's economy). So there's an incentive to relax the environmental protection rules a little bit. A corporation can use this to play countries off each other - if you stand fast by your existing rules, and your neighbour does not, all the plants and all the jobs and all the economic boost will go to your neighbour, making your country weaker on the international scene. There's no bribing involved in this scenario. Just plain market competition at nation-state level.
    - teruakohatu 6y ago
      A polluting factory has to exist somewhere. Edit: I am getting a lot of down votes so let me clarify: if external costs are not internalised, humans will ignore it. Internalising the cost does not even need to mean tax. Many clothing brands in my country, even the budget brands (think Walmart), have been pressured by consumers into using more ethical factories. The same could be done by forcing companies to disclose what factories they use and the factory carbon footprint.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        It could have been non-polluting, but instead of redesigning, it's easier now to get nations to compete against each other for the location of that plant - and as part of that competition, relax the environmental protections. The "freedom of movement" for corporations (freedom of movement of capital?) has plenty of benefits, but this is one of the negative side effects.
        teruakohatu 6y ago
        My solution is for all governments to take responsibility, tax pollution and for consumers to understand the environmental costs of products, possibly by forcing disclosure. I don't understand what your solution is. Ban importing goods? Tax imported goods based on factory pollution and standards?
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Knowing the solution is the easy part. The hard part is how to get there, and how to keep the solution working. "All governments taking responsibility simultaneously" is not something that ever happens. And even if it did, in a moment of selfless reflection of all global leaders, weaker economies will still have a powerful incentive to relax the standards to compete better with stronger economies. I don't have a solution, I'm just saying how things are. Restricting the ability of multinationals to play countries against each other would help in this matter, but it would probably gum up the economy too hard to be worth the attempt (not to mention, it would have to be another thing most governments would have to agree on simultaneously, otherwise the ones to attempt it immediately lose). The overall point is: it is a tragedy of the commons, just not a local one - an international one. The solution to tragedy of the commons is to have a higher authority unilaterally force participants to limit their use of the commons. But we don't have any higher authority above nation states, so we're ill-equipped to solve tragedies of the commons at international level.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Even assuming they are capable of that (I am doubtful), reaching consensus on the idea seems quite a bit of a long shot. Something likely needs to be done though, somehow.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  How inevitable is the rise of casual environmental terrorism? (using the word 'terrorism' because that's how it will be labelled by media and government, no matter the scope)

by 0xddd 6y ago

throwaway888abc 6y ago

Oh, F*ck :( Greedy human race Signed: bleeding coral reef with sad penguin

teruakohatu 6y ago
It's the tragedy of the commons. The only way to change it is for local/state/national governments to remove the tragedy.
- zapita 6y ago
  But nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Which means large corporations get to influence policies, even without any lobbying. "Dear senator, what do you mean those environmental protection regulations apply to us? The regulations of the neighbour country $x, that also invited us to build our 10 000 jobs worth plant on their soil, are nowhere near as onerous. We might need to take them up on their offer. Perhaps at least you can cut us a tax break?"
    - throwaway888abc 6y ago
      Yup, the rationale inside knows that this is difficult problem to tackle. I let the hearth speak for small moment.
    - akie 6y ago
      "Well, dear corporation, if you want to sell your products to our citizens, you have to play by our rules. We'll let you know that your direct competitor already agreed to these rules yesterday."
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        "I'm sorry Senator, you must be confused. Our products meet the health&safety standards prescribed by yours as well as international regulations in this region. You cannot, legally, stop stores from reselling our products, nor you can prevent customers from ordering them on-line. Meanwhile, if you're satisfied with the smaller plant of 2000 jobs of our competitor, we'll happily set up shop at your neighbour's. It was nice dealing with you. I hope you don't mind if I mention your name at the press conference we'll call soon to announce signing of the deal for our new plant with your neighbour."
        akie 6y ago
        "We have and will use our authority to prevent the sale or re-sale of products that do not conform to the rule of law. Please be so kind to mention my name at your press conference, so that my citizens know their government stands up for their rights."
        akie 6y ago
        I know that the above response might seem like a pipe-dream to some, but let me assure you that there are governments and government officials that do stand up for the rule of law, and that are not easily bought by the highest bidder.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Yeah, but what I meant by my response is that, in this hypothetical scenario, the products themselves are fine. Nice, clean, safe, recyclable, whatnot. It's the manufacturing process that's polluting. You can't ban a product from being sold in your country on the grounds that manufacturing it in another country is an ecological disaster. Meanwhile, all those jobs are highly desirable (not just for your personal benefit as a politician, but also for the benefit of your constituents and your nation's economy). So there's an incentive to relax the environmental protection rules a little bit. A corporation can use this to play countries off each other - if you stand fast by your existing rules, and your neighbour does not, all the plants and all the jobs and all the economic boost will go to your neighbour, making your country weaker on the international scene. There's no bribing involved in this scenario. Just plain market competition at nation-state level.
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    A polluting factory has to exist somewhere. Edit: I am getting a lot of down votes so let me clarify: if external costs are not internalised, humans will ignore it. Internalising the cost does not even need to mean tax. Many clothing brands in my country, even the budget brands (think Walmart), have been pressured by consumers into using more ethical factories. The same could be done by forcing companies to disclose what factories they use and the factory carbon footprint.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      It could have been non-polluting, but instead of redesigning, it's easier now to get nations to compete against each other for the location of that plant - and as part of that competition, relax the environmental protections. The "freedom of movement" for corporations (freedom of movement of capital?) has plenty of benefits, but this is one of the negative side effects.
      - teruakohatu 6y ago
        My solution is for all governments to take responsibility, tax pollution and for consumers to understand the environmental costs of products, possibly by forcing disclosure. I don't understand what your solution is. Ban importing goods? Tax imported goods based on factory pollution and standards?
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Knowing the solution is the easy part. The hard part is how to get there, and how to keep the solution working. "All governments taking responsibility simultaneously" is not something that ever happens. And even if it did, in a moment of selfless reflection of all global leaders, weaker economies will still have a powerful incentive to relax the standards to compete better with stronger economies. I don't have a solution, I'm just saying how things are. Restricting the ability of multinationals to play countries against each other would help in this matter, but it would probably gum up the economy too hard to be worth the attempt (not to mention, it would have to be another thing most governments would have to agree on simultaneously, otherwise the ones to attempt it immediately lose). The overall point is: it is a tragedy of the commons, just not a local one - an international one. The solution to tragedy of the commons is to have a higher authority unilaterally force participants to limit their use of the commons. But we don't have any higher authority above nation states, so we're ill-equipped to solve tragedies of the commons at international level.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Even assuming they are capable of that (I am doubtful), reaching consensus on the idea seems quite a bit of a long shot. Something likely needs to be done though, somehow.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
How inevitable is the rise of casual environmental terrorism? (using the word 'terrorism' because that's how it will be labelled by media and government, no matter the scope)