How much austerity is needed to meet CO2 targets?

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,416
Twitter
No
One of the tropes of western life is a better life, more housing, more food, more holidays, more pay... the result of progress.

The former manual-labour "working class" started buying cars here in the 1970s, plastics production boomed to make tacky goods, holidays abroad became common, and hey presto CO2 went thru the roof.

"Progressives" who like to do down business, and do down america, have found in CO2 a great stick to beat their targets with. But the basic problem is that less biz / farming / trade means less money for public service salaries.

Who will be the first TD to call this? We can't have ever-rising living standards for the public service, and have ever-rising CO2 taxes foisted on us by said public service.


Austerity has created indifference towards climate change
 


Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,158
Then hike C02 taxes on the rich, too.

Environmental taxes =/= austerity. Save your ire for USC and other bailout-times measures.

Assuming, of course, you're talking about Ireland here, and not America like all the other little Yanks that are Very Online.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,629
Keeping foreigners foreign should be government policy to deal with the imaginary threat of CO2.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
Taoiseach: Carbon tax 'not designed to take money out of your pocket'

Perhaps the idea is to get people used to making the payment, return the payment in full initially, then phase out the return?

Would it be very difficult to force manufacturing companies to stop packaging everything in plastic? Or in the idea simply to increase revenues to that Ireland can better service the national debt?

Plus will it really change behaviour? Will the payment be enough to incentivize greater independence of the individual and the family unit? Will people start to grow their own fruit and veg, which can very easily happen even in the average sized garden.

Most people would happily forgo the cheque in the post in order to avoid getting those fingers a little green. I suspect in the end any revenue will be sucked up by the state and instead of 'changing behaviours' it will go to service the national debt. Anyone disagree?
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
Ever rising living standards for the public servants, austerity or emigration for everybody else. Thats the Irish way.
Public servants are mostly on average-ish wages. Any in upper tax brackets pay higher taxes accordingly. The only real gripes are therefore e.g. too many sick days, too many holidays, lack of incentivisation.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
Countries like India and China must increase their footprint in order to lift more people out of poverty. A failure to consume available resources plunges many into abject poverty. Very unethical to expect this. A better strategy is to first lift people out of poverty and then reap the benefits as they will naturally become more environmentally conscious as they increase their overall standards.

Anyone disagree? Very unethical to preach that reduction of footprint be prioritised in the short to medium term. That gets it the wrong way round with awful consequences. Most on the left are unable to grasp these facts, or prefer overly simplistic, quick solutions?
 

toastedheretic

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
4,259
Countries like India and China must increase their footprint in order to lift more people out of poverty. A failure to consume available resources plunges many into abject poverty. Very unethical to expect this. A better strategy is to first lift people out of poverty and then reap the benefits as they will naturally become more environmentally conscious as they increase their overall standards.

Anyone disagree? Very unethical to preach that reduction of footprint be prioritised in the short to medium term. That gets it the wrong way round with awful consequences. Most on the left are unable to grasp these facts, or prefer overly simplistic, quick solutions?
These two women were brutally murdered for revealing the corruption of Putin's oligarchy, anyone disagree?


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
One of the tropes of western life is a better life, more housing, more food, more holidays, more pay... the result of progress.

The former manual-labour "working class" started buying cars here in the 1970s, plastics production boomed to make tacky goods, holidays abroad became common, and hey presto CO2 went thru the roof.

"Progressives" who like to do down business, and do down america, have found in CO2 a great stick to beat their targets with. But the basic problem is that less biz / farming / trade means less money for public service salaries.

Who will be the first TD to call this? We can't have ever-rising living standards for the public service, and have ever-rising CO2 taxes foisted on us by said public service.


Austerity has created indifference towards climate change
I really do wonder whether government has thought this through at all. Do they realise what driving the cost of energy through the roof will do? Someone should tell them about the oil crises of the 70s.
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,138
Stop worrying about CO2, it's not the problem, but creating public fear about it is a way for governments to regain leverage over out of control oil companies, pure and simple. If governments really were worried about CO2, they'd simply ban Coca Cola and all fizzy drinks and keg beers. Problem solved. But they don't ban them, so we know CO2 is not the real issue
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
There's quite a bit of this "social justice equals climate justice" stuff knocking around. The OP article, Naomi Klein, George Monbiot:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown
[FONT=&quot]Because we cannot save ourselves without contesting oligarchic control, the fight for democracy and justice and the fight against environmental breakdown are [/FONT]one and the same[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
I consider it divisive, dangerous BS. Counter-productive for a start - by making climate action an issue of the left it makes it look like a tool of the left to achieve other aims and repels environmentally-minded conservatives (see Roger Scruton, Green Philosophy).

The argument is simplistic and wrong. Climate change is caused by "the rich" so the rich should suffer, reduce their emissions and their wealth, and join the struggling middle and working classes (e.g. the gilets jaunes) to live simple but now-affordable lives, so climate change will be solved.

Nonsense.

First of all the struggling middle and working classes of Europe and the US don't want live simple lives - they want more stuff for less money! This is the crux of climate action - everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume. No-one yet seems to want the former - and it'll probably take quite a few rich corporations to achieve the latter!

Secondly, they (we) generally are "the rich" on a global scale, and the descendants of citizens of imperialist states. They aren't queuing up to pay for averting climate change or developing country adjustment.

Thirdly, fewer and fewer are voting for socialist or even social-democratic parties - the overthrow of capitalism remains a minority political pursuit, not one that's going to spur on the achievement of climate justice.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,210
There's quite a bit of this "social justice equals climate justice" stuff knocking around. The OP article, Naomi Klein, George Monbiot:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown


I consider it divisive, dangerous BS. Counter-productive for a start - by making climate action an issue of the left it makes it look like a tool of the left to achieve other aims and repels environmentally-minded conservatives (see Roger Scruton, Green Philosophy).

The argument is simplistic and wrong. Climate change is caused by "the rich" so the rich should suffer, reduce their emissions and their wealth, and join the struggling middle and working classes (e.g. the gilets jaunes) to live simple but now-affordable lives, so climate change will be solved.

Nonsense.

First of all the struggling middle and working classes of Europe and the US don't want live simple lives - they want more stuff for less money! This is the crux of climate action - everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume. No-one yet seems to want the former - and it'll probably take quite a few rich corporations to achieve the latter!

Secondly, they (we) generally are "the rich" on a global scale, and the descendants of citizens of imperialist states. They aren't queuing up to pay for averting climate change or developing country adjustment.

Thirdly, fewer and fewer are voting for socialist or even social-democratic parties - the overthrow of capitalism remains a minority political pursuit, not one that's going to spur on the achievement of climate justice.
They're conditioned and even brainwashed into wanting that stuff, buying that crap does not make them any happier.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,416
Twitter
No
Stop worrying about CO2, it's not the problem, but creating public fear about it is a way for governments to regain leverage over out of control oil companies, pure and simple. If governments really were worried about CO2, they'd simply ban Coca Cola and all fizzy drinks and keg beers. Problem solved. But they don't ban them, so we know CO2 is not the real issue

Yes, I've been mild-green-ish for decades, for aesthetic /health reasons, and my "turn" came when I realised the obvious paths from where we are to where we might be were not being taken.

A decade ago, with the carbon trading scams, I realised the MO is to be seen to do something, but not actually do anything. Then I kept seeing more of this, without having to look very hard.

Then the basic science still won't tell us how much warming is due to us, or due to nature; which is not surprising as climate science is brand new. Scientists in turn rely on grants to keep going, and climate is their new opportunity.

If the EU politburo cycled to work, and saved on air travel by video-conferencing, you might think they were taking their own shpiel seriously. But when anti-austerity protesters kick off, the EU says they are "populist" or worse.


Trial of carbon tax opens in Paris
 

Carbontax

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
54
One of the tropes of western life is a better life, more housing, more food, more holidays, more pay... the result of progress.

The former manual-labour "working class" started buying cars here in the 1970s, plastics production boomed to make tacky goods, holidays abroad became common, and hey presto CO2 went thru the roof.

"Progressives" who like to do down business, and do down america, have found in CO2 a great stick to beat their targets with. But the basic problem is that less biz / farming / trade means less money for public service salaries.

Who will be the first TD to call this? We can't have ever-rising living standards for the public service, and have ever-rising CO2 taxes foisted on us by said public service.


Austerity has created indifference towards climate change
The World Order has yet to start to reduce energy consumption, let alone begin to reduce emissions by 90%.

[/url][/IMG]

See page 10 BP Report https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf

Yet Ireland wants to become a World Leader in Economic Sucide.
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
12,620
Somebody close to me is adamant that when the FF/GP Govt. brought in the carbon tax that the money generated from it since then has not gone to the environment but "to pay back bondholders". I'm sure he's wrong mostly on the latter point but can anyone tell me if it has actually gone to the environment? Similarly to since the plastic bag levy came in- is the money from that going to the environment in Ireland also?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Somebody close to me is adamant that when the FF/GP Govt. brought in the carbon tax that the money generated from it since then has not gone to the environment but "to pay back bondholders".
The banks paid back the bond holders and other maturing debts with money borrowed from the ECB whenever they couldn't source new borrowings on the open market.

It came to about €160 Billion.

Then they paid back the ECB as the borrowers paid down their debts through to 2017.

The revenue from the Carbon Tax went to fund three expenditures.

- Retrofitting the homes of people at risk of fuel poverty with insulation, windows and new boilers

- Reducing VAT on the hospitality sector to create jobs

- Reducing Employers PRSI for new hires to create new jobs.

Any increases in carbon tax must also be ringfenced for specific measures, and not for another round of pay increases for the insiders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJP

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
12,620
The revenue from the Carbon Tax went to fund three expenditures.

- Retrofitting the homes of people at risk of fuel poverty with insulation, windows and new boilers

- Reducing VAT on the hospitality sector to create jobs

- Reducing Employers PRSI for new hires to create new jobs.
Have a link?
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,270
One of the tropes of western life is a better life, more housing, more food, more holidays, more pay... the result of progress.
Let's ok at the co2 reductions achieved by Western economies in the crash. That will give a start on an answer.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
How much austerity is needed to meet CO2 targets?
well, if you're an AGW Denier, or if you've got no regard for the generations that come after you (i'm not sure which of these two categories you fall into).
anyway - for you, it's simple.
no need at all for "CO2 targets".
so your question doesn't even arise.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Countries like India and China must increase their footprint in order to lift more people out of poverty. A failure to consume available resources plunges many into abject poverty. Very unethical to expect this. A better strategy is to first lift people out of poverty and then reap the benefits as they will naturally become more environmentally conscious as they increase their overall standards.

Anyone disagree? Very unethical to preach that reduction of footprint be prioritised in the short to medium term. That gets it the wrong way round with awful consequences. Most on the left are unable to grasp these facts, or prefer overly simplistic, quick solutions?
But hasn't technology progressed to the point where raising their standards should not necessarily mean raising their footprint? Lazy progress of course is the likely path forward for them. Further, less reliance on them by the west for the likes of plastic dumps etc would help. I believe the Chinese have risen to this challenge are no longer take our waste.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top