Submission statement:

Science reports dire outlooks, predicts catastrophic outcomes, and warns humanity of incumbent consequences of inaction.

Meanwhile, the business world, the "economy", the supposed motor, pillar and undisputed cornerstone of our society and even well-being, rewards just the opposite.

We can't expect any different outcome than ever worse news if the incentive system rewards exactly the opposite of what we should be doing

If at all, gains from fossil-fuel based gains should be heavily taxed.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/tawhuac:

Submission statement:

Science reports dire outlooks, predicts catastrophic outcomes, and warns humanity of incumbent consequences of inaction.

Meanwhile, the business world, the "economy", the supposed motor, pillar and undisputed cornerstone of our society and even well-being, rewards just the opposite.

We can't expect any different outcome than ever worse news if the incentive system rewards exactly the opposite of what we should be doing

If at all, gains from fossil-fuel based gains should be heavily taxed.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/ym3qgj/as_long_as_incentives_are_misaligned_its/iv1p1z4/

[removed]

[removed]

At what point amidst the destruction of society and planet will we correct course? Or will it have to be destroyed. Curious to hear your take on the possibility of a shift to stakeholder capitalism?

Just tax carbon.

​

The IPCC discusses it, and aligned with economic consensus about this kind of stuff.

​

​

Also, fight against low density zoning. Don't need gas if you can bike and walk to your local amenities.

Incentivize revenue stability. Offer tax cuts and benefits for businesses that can maintain marginal consistency.

Larger incentives for smaller business, fewer incentives for large businesses. Force companies to use their own wealth, not the government’s or tax payers.

This headline simply describes capitalism as a hindrance to human survival.

[removed]

I agree but hasn't it been a problem where it's been implemented so far? Main problem I hear is inelastic demand. There is no good alternative for transportation fuel which hits a lot of working class hard, although I'm not sure what rebates have been attempted for them.

If demand for carbon really is inelastic, then that means climate change is efficient, welfare maximizing outcome. And it would mean any alternative is more costly and welfare reducing. Otherwise demand wouldn't be inelastic. But there are clearly ways in which firms can reduce their carbon consumption.

And yeah, +dividend reduces any concerns over progressive taxation.

What is "marginal consistency". Almost by definition, something on the margin is not consistent.....

In the long term it is. Capitalist by design favors the individual. That’s not inherently a bad thing, until it comes at the group’s detriment.

Humans evolved as social animals; attaining personal benefit from the group’s success is both normal and optimal. If the group has more food, everyone is stronger for it, which means the group can get even more food as well as better defend themselves. If one individual hoards the food for themself, the group is weakened, losing the capacity to obtain more food or defend its members, which puts the food hoarder at risk as well.

Capitalism encourages and protects the food hoarders. It’s not “i need to make sure the rest of my group also has food so they can protect me,” its “if the rest of my group isn’t also hoarding they deserve to starve.” Instead of “I share my food so we all have the strength to get more” its “I give them some food so they can get more for me.” It’s unsustainable. No other social organism lives like that.

>Offer tax cuts

>Force them to not use taxpayer money

A cat and a dog can’t make children. These things are inherently incompatible. If corporations get a tax cut the burden falls on the rest of us; it’s the same as NOT giving them a tax cut and just giving them money. It all washes out the same.

Give small businesses loans and other incentives. Carefully monitor the systems involved to ensure we don’t see the shit we had during COVID where giant corps took grants meant for mom-and-pops and pocket the money. If a business takes out a loan make them lay out exactly what that money will be used for. If they say they’re going to invest in improved infrastructure, make sure they actually do it. If they violate their word, hammer them so hard they never recover, and make sure that punishment extends to investors: make that company a liability rather than an asset.

Meanwhile, tax corporations at at least the same rates as everyone else. You don’t get a tax break just because you employ 500k people. Tie tax exceptions for corporations to public works, on the condition that they’re truly public. Walmart builds a new bridge or funds a new desalination plant, rebate them the cost of the facility over a five year period. If it fails due to any circumstances other than terrorism or acts of God, the rebate process ceases immediately.

Capitalists love to talk about all the good corporations do, it’s time to put their money where their mouth is and tie the rewards they traditionally get for just existing to ACTUALLY doing good.

The most prominent idea is fee-and-dividend. Charge a fixed fee per ton of carbon, and distribute all the money to residents. Everybody gets the same amount. If you emit less carbon than average, you come out ahead.

This way everybody has an incentive to conserve what they can, but most people end up with more money in their pockets. The more important aspect is that all our industries get a massive incentive to decarbonize.

the problem, i think in canada and france, were people in heavily tranportation related work had no alternative way to do transportation except making carbon. that means less transportation is produced and consumed which means they lose their jobs and the checks they got didn't make up for that. I think thats it. I need to look for youtube videos that go into it some more.

pretty much yes. a group of people feel they will lose their jobs and starve to death now vs children die of heat stroke in the future. basically a retstructuring of the economy to make less carbon means some people are bigger loser while some are gainers. and the people who lose the most are very vocal about it.

Transitioning to a zero-carbon economy would be a huge change in how we physically do things. I don't think there's any way to do that without some people losing their current jobs. The upside is that civilization doesn't collapse into chaos.

Might be reasonable to put some extra money towards helping out particular groups like that, though.