nin.’s Reviews > Philosophical Foundations of Climate Change Policy > Status Update

"It would be better to insist upon the simple and powerful conception of fairness that informs the basic principle of carbon pricing, then leave it up to politicians to ply their trade, by devising ways of convincing the electorate to do the right thing."

for book that is self described as the "realistic way to get some climate legislature"-this is your mission statement?your thesis how things are ought to be done??

"Again, this is consistent with the basic normative position being defended here, which is that it is only the gratuitous production of GHGs that should offend our moral sensibility and that constitutes unfairness to those who must shoulder the costs."
?????????????????????

"This reflects a set of “built-in biases” that “tilt strongly toward endorsement of business as usual, and rejection of health and environmental protection." One can see laid out here a set of psychological associations, used to trace out a pattern of moral contagion that they believe starts with the evil of the market."

how can you be so condescending and so stupid ???

HE SAYS: "After all, no one is talking about turning public parks into actual commodities."
AND THEN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS WITH: "Just thinking about the good as if it were a commodity is not itself a harm, and does not violate any taboo against the buying and selling of it."

???????????????????????????

"It is difficult to see how anyone can seriously maintain, on one page, that climate change is a looming environmental catastrophe and yet, on the next page, reject the most efficient carbon abatement regime, merely because it fails to satisfy an ideal conception of equality that no other institution in the world satisfies."

my brother in christ

"Thus Shue is basically willing to scuttle an efficient carbon-pricing regime
in order to push for a disconcertingly crude and politically unworkable regulatory alternative. The problem stems ultimately from the fact that he has a philosophical view that rules out any workable scheme."
1/2

"The objective of a carbon-pricing regime in the near term is not to stop global warming from occurring. It is intended to reduce warming to the point where that which does occur is justified, by the magnitude of the benefits associated with the activities that produce it."

this is your one argument of what we should do about climate change. and you don't even .... anyway sure.

"Once one realizes, however, that the industrial processes that generate climate change as a byproduct are ones that stand poised to deliver enormous benefits to future generations, then a simple prohibition on
harm fails to motivate concern over anything less than extreme climate change."

god this is so fucking stupid.

"Human population growth is in many respects a more severe threat to the environment than climate change."

ah yes, why did i not see the forced sterilization of global south argument coming.

"I cannot see any reason to think that this problem should prove resistant to human ingenuity, given the enormously more complicated problems that people have been able to resolve when appropriately incentivized. As a result, there is simply no reason for environmentalists to be opposed to economic growth. They should merely insist that it be “clean” growth."

this is so stupid.