[Godstud]

Most of the pollution comes from about 75-100 companies.

These companies should be nationalized. The assets should then be used to finance the (rapid and comprehensive) transition from fossil fuels to more sustainable technologies.

So Communism. You want to disband our Democracy and have the state seize assets of private citizens.

Are with this, too, @late?

[Robert Urbanek]

So Communism. You want to disband our Democracy and have the state seize assets of private citizens.

Are with this, too, @late?

Since many are "addicted" to using fossil fuels, seizing the assets of oil companies would be like seizing the assets of drug dealers.

[Pants-of-dog]

So Communism. You want to disband our Democracy and have the state seize assets of private citizens.

Are with this, too, @late?

No.

But communism would work too, if it were a bit more radical in the right way.

What I am talking about actually creates the least impact on the overall capitalist economy.

It would be like a surgical excision of a tiny fraction of the global economy in order to keep the rest of it as healthy as possible.

The only people who would be “forced” to do anything would be the owners of the 100 most polluting companies in the world. In other words, the people who actually created and sustain the problem.

If the idea is to make communism also mean “making polluters pay for cleaning up their mess”, and then dismiss the idea because it is “communism”, then explain why capitalism has a moral obligation to not make polluters pay.

[Rancid]

I think I would make the best president.

[Steve_American]

No.

But communism would work too, if it were a bit more radical in the right way.

What I am talking about actually creates the least impact on the overall capitalist economy.

It would be like a surgical excision of a tiny fraction of the global economy in order to keep the rest of it as healthy as possible.

1] The only people who would be “forced” to do anything would be the owners of the 100 most polluting companies in the world. In other words, the people who actually created and sustain the problem.

If the idea is to make communism also mean “making polluters pay for cleaning up their mess”, and then dismiss the idea because it is “communism”, then explain why capitalism has a moral obligation to not make polluters pay.

1] You forgot the employees of those 100 corps. Some of them will be laid off fairly fast. Others would be laid off later.

I'm trying to help you, not criticize you.

I would propose that those employees be taken care of by the new owner, the US Gov. [or other Gov.]. Pay them their full income as they are retrained. Pay them a big fraction of it if they choose not to be retrained. At least for a couple of years. Pay to relocate them. Etc.
.

[Steve_American]

I think I would make the best president.

Based on my life long ability to mostly be right, I'd be a great President.
. . . I was very wrong about Obama, he was a great disappointment.

But, I'm too old at 76.
.now 8177 views, now 8385.

[late]

Carbon Taxes are ineffective.

Properly implemented, they are extremely effective.

While you can google up examples, "if you want to change behavior, change the price". This is Econ 101 territory..

But your statement is a benchmark of how far you are willing to go to avoid the obvious...

[late]

I think I would make the best president.

Most of us would make terrible presidents.

You can double that for me, I would be horrible, right down near the bottom with the Republicans starting with Nixon.

If you get a yen for pizza, or thai, or just to get out of the house, you can't. Presidents used to sneak out, it was possible, and they did. No more... A president is constantly interacting with people. I don't like people. Then there is the politics, I'd react to the sleazy politics, which is just what Republicans want. Then there is coalition building, leadership skills. I'm not good at that. Wish I was, but the American distaste of intellectuals means you have to hide your ability. I simply can't do that.

Long story short, I would suck. Most of us would.

[late]

Are with this, too, @late?

Depends.

Take the 'too big to fail' banks as an example. They should be taken over, and the pieces sold off.

IOW, neither extreme makes sense. But a strongly regulated economy benefits everyone, and it's something we need to start doing again.

There are situations where public ownership works. There are places where the city or community owns power generation, and that usually works well, certainly better than Texas..

[late]

[Rich]

Since many are "addicted" to using fossil fuels, seizing the assets of oil companies would be like seizing the assets of drug dealers.

My God the left are further gone than I thought. That you should compare the dealers of heroin, of amphetamines of cocaine to the oil companies just beggars belief. The oil companies that have brought us so much that is good in the modern world. Without petro chemicals I doubt we'd even have an internet, or a world wide web.

The Soviet Union seized the assets of the oil companies, and what good did it do the people? They were poorer, they had shortages and what was produced required more labour, more wasted energy and produced more pollution.

[late]

My God the left are further gone than I thought.

Are you math illiterate?

You just went from 2 to millions. I doubt there are millions that are that far Left.

[late]

This video is terrific, everybody should watch it. It's how we can do it.

[QatzelOk]

Since many are "addicted" to using fossil fuels, seizing the assets of oil companies would be like seizing the assets of drug dealers.

Yes, and as in the case of drug dealers, their clients will fight you tooth and nail in order to keep getting their fix, even if their heroin or fossil fuel addictions are killing their own children.

I am just going to ignore the climate and do nothing

That seems to be the default First World response.

Not only do rich countries do nothing about the harm they do to the environment, they also use propaganda to mask it. Even the obsession with climate change ... as opposed to species extinction, ocean acidity, over-fishing, forests dissappearing, resource exhaustion, etc... is a way of creating a false environmental narrative that oil companies can win if the temprature doesn't change like "the chicken littles" said they would.

Um... human extinction is being driven by a lot more than climate changes. As civilized human cattle... are we even capable of fighting for survival anymore?

The oil companies that have brought us so much that is good in the modern world...

Yes, but is it worth doing extinct for all the benefits they have brought us? Was it worth destroying the public spaces where our children used to learn to be social beings (the street)?

Would you really sacrifice the health of children, and the future of human lives... for some cheap thrills and a temporary burst of power?

[Godstud]

@QatzelOk Don't take what I say out of context, you deceitful little connard.

[Rich]

Yes, but is it worth doing extinct for all the benefits they have brought us? Was it worth destroying the public spaces where our children used to learn to be social beings (the street)?

Would you really sacrifice the health of children, and the future of human lives... for some cheap thrills and a temporary burst of power?

Well the oil economy at least in Britain replaced the coal economy. I don't think the coal economy was particularly healthy for children. As for coal. I don't believe the Ecology / Green party had been formed in the sixteenth century. However given the wood shortage and the endangerment of the last of our forests, I don't doubt that if they had been formed, they would have supported, nay even demanded a more rapid transition from wood to coal.

It seems to have been forgotten now, but coal was the green energy technology in Tudor times.

[late]

Well the oil economy at least in Britain replaced the coal economy. I don't think the coal economy was particularly healthy for children.

On rare occasions, London can have an inversion. One happened in 1952 and killed thousands. That was also when they started moving away from coal.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Smog-of-London