Introduction Climate change is one of the most important problems of our time. One of the most important aspects of this problem is determining who should bear its costs. Climate change is, among other things, a problem of distributive justice. My aim in this essay is to sketch a view about how to distribute the costs of climate change. This approach will consist of two claims: one analytical and the other normative. The analytical claim is that we should think about the atmosphere—specifically, its ability to absorb greenhouse gasses—as a scarce natural resource that commands an economic rent. The normative claim is that we should use Georgist (rather than Lockean) principles to distribute this economic rent. In
I need to read more of George and I’m curious to what degree he incorporates scale/localism within his philosophy? Would he have expected that someone on one side of the world benefit from the natural resources on the other side? LVT inherently can be applied with consent at more granular scales - city, county, country - which is appealing and I think gets political support from both a libertarian right and socialist/anarchist left direction.
People have said my writings lean towards Georgist at times. Not sure, I am in favour of fairplay so probably.
However I seek systems that can tollerate and sideline interference from special groups and having a per capita system of some sort seems fair. I would like all of natures bounty to be stpread evenly across all the citizens of a region who have accepted the social contract of the region as determined by the citizens of the region, a mutually beneficial contract like citizenship is supposed to be.
All that said I want a system that will defuse fear mongering as a tool to manipulate people, north and south to enrich globalists.
I am not convinced that humans have much effect on climate and am even less inclined to think that while we are on the planet that we have any real way to change things. I however would love to have a way that humans could portion the one time bounty of nature to last as many generations as possible and this is why a Adult Resident Citizens Dividend could work. All natural income is divided FAIRLY amongst the adult citizens, cost of running the country is taxed FAIRLY from the citizens and corporations at a flat rate adequate for the work at hand. To lower taxes citizens would have to streamline government, reduce weapons development and warmongering, to increase the dividend people would have to develop ways to make natural resource extraction more efficient and increase the pool of national patents that can be licences and hydro potential and state forest growth while limiting NEW MONEY that also goes to the people first because they have to 'service the debt' (until such time as central banks can be permanently weeded out and replaced with citizens banks).
A delightful member on Linked-In posts occasionally some very credible data that would make any logical person question the fact that it is not mentioned in any climate change propaganda. I will mention a point here with poorly recollected numbers. Basically some simple sums on the amount of heat from geothermal and solar inputs is X, the changes in this amount is the noise in climate over recorded time was about 1% that causes the detectable shifts in climate. This 1% was 40 times greater than what humans can achieve at the best of times, so it is rather grandiose to think that were are the problem when we are only one part in 4000 of the climate inputs.
The other thing I have issue with is the dog whistle term climate change denialist. It labels basically EVERYONE as an when required. Look at the definition on wikipedia, unless you are in 100% agreement with the CURRENT models predicting the rate of whatever, having doubts about anything makes you a denialist. This is not a scientific position so should no be used to set policy.
"Climate change denial refers to denial, dismissal, or doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part."
very interesting. you suggest determining co2 emissions per capita on a per country basis, so then would then companies that perform carbon capture be rewarded at a national level?
Practically speaking, what is the mechanism that would monitor and restrict my carbon emissions relative to my permitted allotment? I emit CO2 every time I start my car or even flip on a light switch.
I need to read more of George and I’m curious to what degree he incorporates scale/localism within his philosophy? Would he have expected that someone on one side of the world benefit from the natural resources on the other side? LVT inherently can be applied with consent at more granular scales - city, county, country - which is appealing and I think gets political support from both a libertarian right and socialist/anarchist left direction.
Nice exposition of the philosophical arguments! Great to see content on this topic on P&P.
A more politically viable approach would be to make removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere profitable in itself. https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/04/10/climate-tech-checklist/
People have said my writings lean towards Georgist at times. Not sure, I am in favour of fairplay so probably.
However I seek systems that can tollerate and sideline interference from special groups and having a per capita system of some sort seems fair. I would like all of natures bounty to be stpread evenly across all the citizens of a region who have accepted the social contract of the region as determined by the citizens of the region, a mutually beneficial contract like citizenship is supposed to be.
All that said I want a system that will defuse fear mongering as a tool to manipulate people, north and south to enrich globalists.
I am not convinced that humans have much effect on climate and am even less inclined to think that while we are on the planet that we have any real way to change things. I however would love to have a way that humans could portion the one time bounty of nature to last as many generations as possible and this is why a Adult Resident Citizens Dividend could work. All natural income is divided FAIRLY amongst the adult citizens, cost of running the country is taxed FAIRLY from the citizens and corporations at a flat rate adequate for the work at hand. To lower taxes citizens would have to streamline government, reduce weapons development and warmongering, to increase the dividend people would have to develop ways to make natural resource extraction more efficient and increase the pool of national patents that can be licences and hydro potential and state forest growth while limiting NEW MONEY that also goes to the people first because they have to 'service the debt' (until such time as central banks can be permanently weeded out and replaced with citizens banks).
A delightful member on Linked-In posts occasionally some very credible data that would make any logical person question the fact that it is not mentioned in any climate change propaganda. I will mention a point here with poorly recollected numbers. Basically some simple sums on the amount of heat from geothermal and solar inputs is X, the changes in this amount is the noise in climate over recorded time was about 1% that causes the detectable shifts in climate. This 1% was 40 times greater than what humans can achieve at the best of times, so it is rather grandiose to think that were are the problem when we are only one part in 4000 of the climate inputs.
The other thing I have issue with is the dog whistle term climate change denialist. It labels basically EVERYONE as an when required. Look at the definition on wikipedia, unless you are in 100% agreement with the CURRENT models predicting the rate of whatever, having doubts about anything makes you a denialist. This is not a scientific position so should no be used to set policy.
"Climate change denial refers to denial, dismissal, or doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part."
very interesting. you suggest determining co2 emissions per capita on a per country basis, so then would then companies that perform carbon capture be rewarded at a national level?
Practically speaking, what is the mechanism that would monitor and restrict my carbon emissions relative to my permitted allotment? I emit CO2 every time I start my car or even flip on a light switch.