There was a time when potential financial benefits were secondary to the need for shelter. Over time, the loss of pensions and other factors forced people to put more emphasis on the financial returns. Then institutional investors found ways to turn housing into an asset class. That accelerated the growing perception that housing was about returns on investment, with shelter as a beneficial side effect. Now, the “shelter” component of housing is only just starting to become part of the discourse again, but is still mostly considered a side effect of housing as a financial investment.
Shelter will continue to be a problem until we go back to a system where housing is about shelter and prices rise at about the same rate as inflation (or slower, due to increased productivity!).
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.
I think Zizek is saying something similar in his last book. It’s not about averting catastrophe any more. The catastrophe already happened. We are already in the post-apocalyptic scenario.
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 $1.18
Toronto is $1.08
Calgary is $1.00
Vancouver is $1.31
Halifax is $1.35
London England is $1.88
Berlin is $2.08
Fun 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.
Let each person rise and fall according the merits of their work and quality of their duties. No person is entitled to anything. Even respect has to be earned and prove why anyone should treat someone with dignity and honour.
Let each person business rise and fall according the merits of their work and quality of their duties. No person business is entitled to anything. Even respect has to be earned.
If employers can merge and negotiate collectively, so can workers. And if you’re unswayed by that argument, remember that their right to free association lets them negotiate collectively regardless of what you think about it.
Wow. Moving someone to another location and then suddenly firing them for “communication standards?” Unless there’s some highly compelling evidence to indicate otherwise, it’s pretty clear cut what happened here. I guess they calculate it’s better to pay a fine for a wrongful dismissal than to have a supervisor that is sympathetic to workers.
Want to fix this? It’ll take a) jail time, and b) asset seizure.
Corporate structure deliberate distributes responsibility for things like this such that:
It’s very hard to find one person to blame, let alone prove malfeasance.
If by some chance you do find a smoking gun, the fine for doing so is usually less than the profit of the transgression
If, eg, Howard Schultz and his direct-reports faced fines and/or jail time directly, and those fines were orders of magnitude the harms of the action, then you’d see some of this stop.
In this region of Canada, at least, the maximum penalty for wrongful dismissal is … Standard severance.
Source: a dear friend launched a successful human-rights complaint against a very deep-pocketed employer who blatantly violated clear medical orders and then fired him when he objected. Like, 100% dead-to-rights on a claim with no normal upper limit. Except here it maxes out at a pittance.
Need a better lawyer because you aren’t fully terminated till you sign the agreement. Had two friends deal with it. Company thought they would just do standard termination pay, lawyer got one person that plus severance for senior position and years, plus they owed an agreed upon closing pay for ending employment. They other person got every hour of pay they ever worked past their original signed salary weekly hours. Company thought theyd give a few weeks termination, ended up costing them half a years salary in OT
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.
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.
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.
On the one hand, I think you need to put trigger warnings on that shit.
On the other, part of me is pissed that, at 67, I might not live long enough to say “I fucking told you so!” to all the idiots around me and have it mean anything.
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’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.
I respectfully disagree that I’ve fallen for anything. I came by my views over several decades of discussion, debate, and activism. That doesn’t say anything about whether I’m right or wrong in my characterization of the problem as being one of human nature rather than a technical or even sociological problem.
I have never stopped taking what action I can take to minimize my personal contribution to the problem. Nor have I ever tried to sway others away from their own action. I may be misguided in my efforts, but I now focus on getting people to see that we must recognize our human cognitive failures and fight to overcome them. I may have the wrong approach in that, but I don’t see anyone else doing anything to address that foundational problem.
I reduced my focus on nuclear power, passive heating and cooling, public transit, and walkable cities nearly two decades ago when I realized that the problem is not lack of solutions, but lack of action. And not just action, but action at all scales from the local to the global, by everyone from individuals to companies large and small to all levels of government in all countries.
This is not a debate about publicly funded healthcare housing, neither of which has a deadline. This has a deadline. We can argue over the precise nature and timing of the deadline, but we cannot have any reasonable disagreement over its existence and its consequences. Unless and until we have accepted the need for action, we will not – cannot! – act, at least not effectively. So that is where the battle must be joined, in convincing people of the need to overcome their natures so they see that action is both necessary and possible.
My contention, and I’ll be very, very happy to be proven wrong, is that the time remaining to forestall disaster has run out without yet having convinced anyone of the need to act. That, of course, does not mean we should do anything other than redouble our efforts in that direction in the hopes of avoiding ecological and civilizational collapse. But that doesn’t change my claim that our only battle is our battle against our nature.
I don’t know how to phrase your missing 4th option, but it is an option and it is missing.
I just wanna get paid enough that I can travel the world from time to time. Get to live a little before I turn 60 with a butt load of health problems. And I only got 20 years left before that happens. The last 20 years I spent mostly struggling to survive until I got comfortable enough.
thetyee.ca
Newest