Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigMemeKing t1_jecwrq2 wrote

I was once asked in a very "You're stupid" kind of way, if I believed corporations could buy up all the property on the planet.

Yes.

Yes I do.

As long as there is a need for space to produce goods, procure raw materials or house the ridiculously large homes of the wealthy. Those in a seat of wealth and power will find the way to lay claim to the space they need to further push their personal agendas.

219

kindle139 t1_jedeaxk wrote

They would claim to own all the air and charge you for breathing if they could get away with it.

100

AbstractMirror t1_jedoook wrote

Hey I've seen this before. We just need to call the lorax

15

BigMemeKing t1_jeeof2b wrote

There are several movies about this very thing, several songs as well. It's an old concept as we continue to rip and cut our way through every tree we can to build housing materials, furniture, entertainment sources like skate boards, snow boards, surf boards and so that giant corporations can profit.

It has been and won't stop happening until we're left with very little natural habitats. We've long been cutting through our rainforests, and selling rights to national parks to certain companies so they can clear space for their machines.

But one hiker scribbles on some rocks with paint and the whole world loses its mind. Crazy right? Then we start to feel such disgust because "those are our national parks!" "We need to preserve them!" "We can't be slapping graffiti on the rocks there! Conserve their natural beauty!" While 100 ft to the left is a cleared out patch of earth with an oil pump just sipping on that crude, lining some oil barons pockets.

It's silly. Life is silly. Our priorities are silly. We have pipelines running for thousands of miles, causing oil spills at a disastrous level, and the courts just have these companies pay some millions of dollars and it's "ok". And we look and see a price tag of 30 million and think "Oh wow! That's a lot of money, so it's fair right? But to a multi billion dollar oil company that makes 500 million every year... 30 million is a small price to pay for progress right? Especially when it's just a one time payment for a disaster that has impacts for years to come.

Call it an oopsie tax.

9

kindle139 t1_jef4e5d wrote

Yeah man, humanity can really be quite.. human. Our capacity for greatness is matched only by our capacity for folly.

1

CptHammer_ t1_jee3biz wrote

Carbon credits. They're doing it already.

−5

RuinLoes t1_jeed1t4 wrote

Thats not what carbon credits are. Are you serious?

3

CptHammer_ t1_jef1qxc wrote

Carbon credits have nothing to do with charging companies who pass the cost on to consumers for carbon going into the air... Got it, thanks.

−1

RuinLoes t1_jefkzqp wrote

Even your weird conservative fantasy, taken as absolute truth, would mot make sense in this context.

0

CptHammer_ t1_jefrqgx wrote

>A carbon credit is a tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit a set amount of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of a different greenhouse gas.

Please edit the Wikipedia page to reflect that it has nothing to do with air and isn't a form of added value. It's clearly wrong because you know so much.

−1

RuinLoes t1_jegia23 wrote

That wasn't me.

I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.

That was you.

Are you ok?

Like, you have to know that you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?

0

CptHammer_ t1_jeh1273 wrote

>I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.

I also did not say this. Are you ok?

I'm pretty sure you're now pointing your insults at yourself.

I implied companies are selling air in the form of carbon credits. Wikipedia agrees with me, but I'll concede it's a source that should be edited by you if you don't agree with us. I'm not an expert as you're implying you are. I've deferred to your expertise twice and you had this to say:

>you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?

People that concede to your expertise are morons? I withdraw my concession at your insistence. Now we're back to square one, companies have started to sell air you breath.

0

RuinLoes t1_jeh1dol wrote

Ph wow, that is both not what you said and even dumber.

Carbon credits are a way to subsidize maximum quotas.

You have it dead ass backwards. They have to buy carbon credits, and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.

You really are not bright, are you.

1

CptHammer_ t1_jeh4dvs wrote

>They have to buy carbon credits,

You don't think they pass that cost onto the consumer?

>and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.

Yes, making a carbon credit a valuable commodity. When one company makes a business decision that happens to align with reduced carbon output they earn a credit which they are allowed to sell. They are selling air pollution indulgences like the catholic church. There are literally companies created to mine carbon credits.

Another company buys the credit so the net pollution savings is zero if a credit didn't have to go through an exchange which can limit the exchange rate. It's still really close to zero because of the added industry of the exchange bureaucracy, if not actually creating more pollution.

In the end they are trading air rights, specifically the right to pollute it. Then if a government buys the credit they tax to pay for it. If a business buys a credit they add it to their overhead costs which 100% gets passed to the customer.

Since the entire carbon credits scheme is neutral at best the result is they are selling air.

It seems like we're 100% back on the same page since you've acknowledged carbon credits must be purchased. I've only explained how business works.

0

RuinLoes t1_jeh54su wrote

Holy shit.

Like, i can't give you anymore. You just fundamentally don't understand what "maxium" means.

Credits are a negative sum. If a company has creddits to sell, it means they came in under THE MAXIMUM QUOTA.

They are not selling the ability to pollute more, they are selling the balance left of their regulatory limit.

I cannot help you. You are just so fucking dumb.

0

LegendOfDarius t1_jee80v0 wrote

Carbon credits are a stupid ass system.

−1

Sonyguyus t1_jeen3qk wrote

To me it’s like eating a cheeseburger and saying it’s ok because I had lettuce tomato on it. Those are healthy. They should cancel out the calories and artery clogging grease.

1

doctorcrimson t1_jedtry4 wrote

Theres one thing standing in their way and thats a democratic public entity and system of laws upheld by legislators and courts.

People say both sides bad but only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.

4

sharksnut t1_jedvwjd wrote

>only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.

In this case, Biden. This is a unilateral Department of the Interior move, not Congress

20

doctorcrimson t1_jeerhmv wrote

That's fair, Haaland is a Biden appointed Secretary of Interior.

1

RuinLoes t1_jeeczet wrote

You are right, this but its also not native land or public forests.

0

CntrllrDscnnctd t1_jeejdsf wrote

People are so naive. We haven’t even scratched the surface on what will be bought on this planet, we are, for all intents and purposes, still one of the early citizens of this planet, life will exist in 50-100-500 years, infrastructure will be put everywhere it can be. The question is, will be personally see it? No, we will be long gone, but it’s naive to think that we’ve peaked at what and where we will buy and purchase in the near and distant future.

−1

TheLit420 t1_jeec1ft wrote

They also build you your housing.

−7

RuinLoes t1_jeecw02 wrote

What a strange and nonsensical counterpoint.

7

TheLit420 t1_jeedj40 wrote

It didn't come off as nonsensical in the OP's statement considering they were saying that the wealthy would only build their houses on large amounts of land.

−1

RuinLoes t1_jeee0cq wrote

Uh, ya it is, its a complete and total non sequitur.

Watch:

"The hell, gary just stole my wallet!"

"But didn't gary make the wallet?"

If you don't see the problem with that second statement, i have some bad news for you.

7

BigMemeKing t1_jeeis1z wrote

The wealthy would, only build there houses on large amounts of land. They want the space, the privacy, not just from prying eyes but from prying ears. They want their "personal space" as it were, and that's their own form of a 6 foot covid barrier.

0