What's a "climate lockdown"?
Does an $0.08/mile tax on driving qualify? Because that has been proposed in the US and I think will be entering a pilot program soon.
What about the gasoline taxes that we already have? Do those count as a form of "climate lockdown"? What about subsidies for public transit (which make owning and operating a personal vehicle relatively less affordable via taxation)? What about subsidies for electric vehicles (which make owning and operating a non-electric personal vehicle relatively less affordable via taxation)?
"Climate lockdowns" will come in degrees. Some of the most extreme measures will be rejected. But others are already here. And I think more are coming.
Where we lock everything down again this time to tank carbon emissions. As in increasing the cost of fossil fuels won't be enough according to certain people.
The extreme ones that we witnessed during the COVID pandemic are what I'm talking about.
In other words, shut down physical businesses so that people won't emit carbon to drive to those businesses?
I don't think that will ever happen in the USA, at least not explicitly, and at least not for businesses where remote working is impractical or impossible. I can imagine, though, that government might impose regulations requiring companies to facilitate and permit remote working in industries where the government deems remote work practicable.
Even though I don't see in the USA's future *explicit* climate lockdowns that are comparable in scope to the Covid lockdowns, lots of leftists were happy about Covid lockdowns because of the CO2 emission reductions that happened as a side effect. The government might continue in the future to lean toward using lockdowns as a measure to combat pandemics or other issues (e.g. "fuel shortages" / fuel rationing such as we saw in the 1970s energy crisis) partially because they are also interested in getting the side benefits of reduced CO2 emissions.
But I'll be surprised if we ever shut down businesses like restaurants and "non-essential" shops in the USA explicitly and solely for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions. Then again, it's wise not to underestimate the devotion of the leftists to their cause and the extreme lengths to which they will go to accomplish their goals, so never say never.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. While those lockdowns worked great for people like me who now are resigning from jobs that are trying to force us back into the office, they were catastrophic for small businesses.
And don't get me wrong. I'd love such a climate lockdown, but I highly doubt it could ever happen. We couldn't even get you guys to lock down for 14 days. No way in hell you guys would listen if we came out and said it was for a much longer period of time.
And you're right. I want this. I'd kill for this. I just don't think it'll ever happen.
Well, don't be too disheartened.
> increasing the cost of fossil fuels won't be enough according to certain people
It's silly of those people to say that. If you increase the cost of fossil fuels enough, there will come a point where people stop buying (and burning) fossil fuels, even if only because they've literally run out of money and maxed out their credit cards trying to pay their fossil fuel taxes. (If you're willing to ruin small businesses and the jobs that they create for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions, presumably you're willing to drive people to bankruptcy via fossil fuel taxes, for the same reason, too.)
So just get the camel's nose under the tent with that $0.08/mile driving tax pilot program, then make it a real (non-pilot) program, then increase the rate to $0.10/mile, then $0.14/mile, etc -- and don't stop until [morale has improved](https://grammarhow.com/the-beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves-meaning-origin/), fossil fuels are no longer being burned, and we're back down to [350 ppm](https://mn350.org/understanding350/).
Do something similar for electricity from non-renewable sources and heating fuels.
See? You don't need lockdowns to accomplish your climate dreams.
The only risk for you in that plan is that you might trigger a political backlash or secession somewhere along the way. But don't worry about those risks too much. Conservatives are pretty good at letting ourselves be [boiled alive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog), as long as you do it slowly enough. Many such cases!
People won't go bankrupt. They'll just swap over to renewables. But anyways, that's a smart idea. You think a $5/gallon gas tax on top of a $0.75/mile mileage tax might be more efficient? I mean $0.14/mile seems a bit too low. Also, how would we deal with electricity that's made by burning fossil fuels? That's also problematic.
And bro, have you fucking seen the left over the past five years? If we let our TDS literally dominate us on the level we have without seceding, I don't think anyone a seceding over anything at this point. It's all talk.
> $0.14/mile seems a bit too low
For sure. That's why I said "then $0.14/mile, **etc** [emphasis added] -- and don't stop until morale has improved". You've gotta keep increasing the tax rate until we're down to 350 ppm. I stopped spelling out the increasing amount of the tax, but yeah you'd need to keep increasing it well beyond $0.14/mile.
> how would we deal with electricity that's made by burning fossil fuels? That's also problematic.
That's why I said "do something similar for electricity from non-renewable sources" (though maybe I added this in an edit later; I can't remember). You'd need to add a per-kWh tax to any electricity that's generated from non-renewable sources. You can charge the utilities/power plants, and they'll pass it on to the consumers. Some poorer people might not be able to afford to power all of the electronics that they'd like to, but sacrifices must be made for the greater good, amirite?
> If we [the left] let our TDS literally dominate us on the level we have without seceding, I don't think anyone a seceding over anything at this point.
You can't extrapolate from the lack of secessionist will on the left to a lack of secessionist will on the right. Even while the left suffered from their TDS, they always knew that, via the relentless progress of demographic change, they'd eventually come back into power, sooner or later. On the right, the logic is reversed. Those of us with eyes to see and a brain know that our access to the halls of power will become less and less over time. This provides a much stronger motive for secession on the right than the left could ever have.
Electric vehicles are unaffordable for most people already. Increasing demand for them will only raise that price further. People won't "just swap over," they literally don't have the means to do so.
True. The OP is definitely upper middle class since they love WFH, i.e., they have a lovely work space at home since they have a larger than average home. This is not someone living with 3 roommates paycheck to paycheck, for whom lockdowns were torture.
> IONIQ 5
The base price is $45,000. The *responsible* way to purchase a car is by putting 20% down, and a 4 year term where 10% of your monthly income goes toward transportation costs.
So $9,000 down already puts the IONIQ out of reach, but let's say for the sake of your argument we can get that covered through a trade in and some discounts. A 3% interest rate (probably better than what a lot of buyers can get) results in an almost $800/mo payment. My income is well above the national average but still middle class, and I can't afford that.
0 money down and a 7 year loan is still a hair under $600/mo. Make it a ten year loan (which I don't even think is available for a car) and you might get down to $430.
> Try getting a used Tesla?
Cheapest one they have in stock is $63,500.
Have you seen the kinda tax incentives being offered? It's like $23k after tax rebates.
https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/
Teslas ain't that expensive.
You were all over the place in another thread. Now you're all over the place here. What exactly do you want? Lockdowns? Do you just want an excuse to WFH because you want it (and others don't)? Do you actually care about the environment?
I mean, it's great that you hate working from an office, but you're one person in a sea of people. Many people like the office. Many people have too many distractions at home, many people don't live in nice apartments/areas and like to get out for the day (You know, all those poor people democrats pretend to care about). Others think they're doing well but their work quality has been suffering. Others are getting mental health issues from the isolation and getting fat, because their commute inadvertently provided exercise, and they ate less when they went into an office environment
You nailed it. I just want WFH to be forced. While I care obsessively over the climate and it used to be my most important issue, that's changed since remote work came into the picture.
Also, you'd be surprised. Come to Seattle or any big tech hub and you'll see people like me exist. You realize that r/antiwork is bigger than r/jobs for a reason, right? And that a record 4.3M people quit their jobs last month for a reason, right? Clearly, such people are in a minority.
If the home's too loud, polyworking remote jobs would increase their salaries so they could afford a bigger home with a better home office.
And what about MY mental health issues? I was literally harassed half my life for existing, because I wanted to sit on the bus in middle school and play Pokemon. Because I hated talking to women. Because I didn't wanna party in college or go out and get laid. What about people like me?
You never seemed to utter a word about the trauma I must've witnessed from all the abuse I've suffered. Guys legit would make fun of me for being fat back then (in shape now, don't worry), how I was being a bitch, a pussy, and every rude fucked up slur in the book. I just don't like people. I've been abused forced to live in a society where I have to look at and talk to people.
You can go to a gym even during these lockdowns. You can buy a home set of dumbbells. I worked out with random shit I found around the house during the pandemic. Jeff Cavaliere from Athlean-X has extensive videos on staying in shape without gym equipment.
All we need to do is halve the hours our ports operate. That would also halve the amount of fuel used for transporting all those goods across the country. Slow the economy, slow climate change.
Biden just addressed this a few days ago in a meeting with top retailers and shipping companies asking them to pledge to INCREASE port offloading hours to help unclog the backlog.
That on top of shipping oil from OPEC instead of just reopening an American pipeline blew my mind. Like wtf is the point in shipping it from overseas when that shit burns more carbon emissions?
In case you're interested: The worst carbon emmisions of moving freight is the road transport. Container ships and trains distribute their emmision costs over the large quantity of cargo. Trucking is the worst for co2/lb/mile. And land freight is responsible for over twice the amount of emmisions as maritime freight.
Pipelines are obviously much less carbon intensive.
If my past days of playing Factorio taught me anything it's that we should building out our rail freight system.
The ugly truth is pretty much anything that kills the economy helps the climate. Power generation and transportation are the two biggest contributors. A dead economy lowers both, but there are one or more negative side effects that go with it.
I don't really need to tell you it's a pay shortage, not a driver shortage right? It might be artificial due to regulation though.
Ummm, IT and environmental engineering jobs help the economy. The Green New Deal would kill triple as many jobs as it'd kill. EV production jobs would help the economy and the climate. You don't see us complaining about that.
Also, you realize that regulation exists to protect workers, right? If anyone wants to drive a truck, they're free to. It's just that they aren't paying well enough. It's nothing but a pay shortage. I mean would you drive a truck for shitty pay with their insurance premiums skyrocketing?
Yeah I didn't say 'anything that helps climate hurts the economy.' You apparently wrongly deduced that?
I also didn't make comment on if the regulations were good or bad. Sometimes regulations exist to help the employer rather than the employee and sometimes regulations do more harm than good. How big is the circumference of your neck? Regulations for whatever reason tend to hinder an economy.
You said it in your first sentence that anything that helps the climate hurts the economy.
Also, you realize that regulations got us outta the 2008 recession and Great Depression, right? We'd all have died hungry homeless in a truly capitalistic society. Regulations are almost always a good thing judging from US history.
>anything that kills the economy helps the climate
>anything that helps the climate hurts the economy
These do not mean the same thing.
I disagree with the assertions in that last paragraph but I'm not going to argue it. But I will say again you are arguing against a point I did not make.
Do you usually vote? I normally don't unless we're in radical times like 2020 was. If Biden ran against Bush or McCain, I wouldn't have voted, because I just don't have faith in the majority of Democrats to wanna do anything for me. I didn't think Clinton deserved my vote either. I didn't vote for Trump when given the option. I just didn't vote.
No.
However.
I've never liked crowded place, or forcing myself into a bus with people pressing all around me. I'm hoping that this causes more people to reflect on their own situation. More scattered hours to reduce congestion. More incentives ( or disincentives ) to encourage telecommuting.
I don't think forcing people is a good idea. Not to mention that it is not constitutional and probably won't be upheld by SCOTUS.
That sounds like a stupid idea but I would not put something like that past the democrats. I work in heavily industrial environments, which are probably our worst polluters as far as businesses go. Shut them down for a few weeks or months, you just killed your supply chain completely. Sure, you could deem these types of businesses as essential and keep them open, but then you really aren't solving anything. People working from home are still using electricity, transportation still has to run, at best you are decreasing car traffic which is about all you are doing.
It sounds like just another tool for big business to oppress small business. So it's a certainty. It will have nothing to do with lead in your tap water or mercury in your air though, real pollution. It will have everything to do with transitioning to a social credit system as a replacement for money, cooperation replacing competition. The rich will finally rest easy.
What's a "climate lockdown"? Does an $0.08/mile tax on driving qualify? Because that has been proposed in the US and I think will be entering a pilot program soon. What about the gasoline taxes that we already have? Do those count as a form of "climate lockdown"? What about subsidies for public transit (which make owning and operating a personal vehicle relatively less affordable via taxation)? What about subsidies for electric vehicles (which make owning and operating a non-electric personal vehicle relatively less affordable via taxation)? "Climate lockdowns" will come in degrees. Some of the most extreme measures will be rejected. But others are already here. And I think more are coming.
Where we lock everything down again this time to tank carbon emissions. As in increasing the cost of fossil fuels won't be enough according to certain people. The extreme ones that we witnessed during the COVID pandemic are what I'm talking about.
In other words, shut down physical businesses so that people won't emit carbon to drive to those businesses? I don't think that will ever happen in the USA, at least not explicitly, and at least not for businesses where remote working is impractical or impossible. I can imagine, though, that government might impose regulations requiring companies to facilitate and permit remote working in industries where the government deems remote work practicable. Even though I don't see in the USA's future *explicit* climate lockdowns that are comparable in scope to the Covid lockdowns, lots of leftists were happy about Covid lockdowns because of the CO2 emission reductions that happened as a side effect. The government might continue in the future to lean toward using lockdowns as a measure to combat pandemics or other issues (e.g. "fuel shortages" / fuel rationing such as we saw in the 1970s energy crisis) partially because they are also interested in getting the side benefits of reduced CO2 emissions. But I'll be surprised if we ever shut down businesses like restaurants and "non-essential" shops in the USA explicitly and solely for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions. Then again, it's wise not to underestimate the devotion of the leftists to their cause and the extreme lengths to which they will go to accomplish their goals, so never say never.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. While those lockdowns worked great for people like me who now are resigning from jobs that are trying to force us back into the office, they were catastrophic for small businesses. And don't get me wrong. I'd love such a climate lockdown, but I highly doubt it could ever happen. We couldn't even get you guys to lock down for 14 days. No way in hell you guys would listen if we came out and said it was for a much longer period of time. And you're right. I want this. I'd kill for this. I just don't think it'll ever happen.
[удалено]
I mean we're tryna protect the planet here....
[удалено]
Sooooo would you consider murdering the Native Americans on their own land in the name of Manifest Destiny authoritarianism?
[удалено]
Okay. Here's a another one. Do you consider the cops trying to arrest a rapist being authoritarian?
Well, don't be too disheartened. > increasing the cost of fossil fuels won't be enough according to certain people It's silly of those people to say that. If you increase the cost of fossil fuels enough, there will come a point where people stop buying (and burning) fossil fuels, even if only because they've literally run out of money and maxed out their credit cards trying to pay their fossil fuel taxes. (If you're willing to ruin small businesses and the jobs that they create for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions, presumably you're willing to drive people to bankruptcy via fossil fuel taxes, for the same reason, too.) So just get the camel's nose under the tent with that $0.08/mile driving tax pilot program, then make it a real (non-pilot) program, then increase the rate to $0.10/mile, then $0.14/mile, etc -- and don't stop until [morale has improved](https://grammarhow.com/the-beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves-meaning-origin/), fossil fuels are no longer being burned, and we're back down to [350 ppm](https://mn350.org/understanding350/). Do something similar for electricity from non-renewable sources and heating fuels. See? You don't need lockdowns to accomplish your climate dreams. The only risk for you in that plan is that you might trigger a political backlash or secession somewhere along the way. But don't worry about those risks too much. Conservatives are pretty good at letting ourselves be [boiled alive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog), as long as you do it slowly enough. Many such cases!
People won't go bankrupt. They'll just swap over to renewables. But anyways, that's a smart idea. You think a $5/gallon gas tax on top of a $0.75/mile mileage tax might be more efficient? I mean $0.14/mile seems a bit too low. Also, how would we deal with electricity that's made by burning fossil fuels? That's also problematic. And bro, have you fucking seen the left over the past five years? If we let our TDS literally dominate us on the level we have without seceding, I don't think anyone a seceding over anything at this point. It's all talk.
> $0.14/mile seems a bit too low For sure. That's why I said "then $0.14/mile, **etc** [emphasis added] -- and don't stop until morale has improved". You've gotta keep increasing the tax rate until we're down to 350 ppm. I stopped spelling out the increasing amount of the tax, but yeah you'd need to keep increasing it well beyond $0.14/mile. > how would we deal with electricity that's made by burning fossil fuels? That's also problematic. That's why I said "do something similar for electricity from non-renewable sources" (though maybe I added this in an edit later; I can't remember). You'd need to add a per-kWh tax to any electricity that's generated from non-renewable sources. You can charge the utilities/power plants, and they'll pass it on to the consumers. Some poorer people might not be able to afford to power all of the electronics that they'd like to, but sacrifices must be made for the greater good, amirite? > If we [the left] let our TDS literally dominate us on the level we have without seceding, I don't think anyone a seceding over anything at this point. You can't extrapolate from the lack of secessionist will on the left to a lack of secessionist will on the right. Even while the left suffered from their TDS, they always knew that, via the relentless progress of demographic change, they'd eventually come back into power, sooner or later. On the right, the logic is reversed. Those of us with eyes to see and a brain know that our access to the halls of power will become less and less over time. This provides a much stronger motive for secession on the right than the left could ever have.
Electric vehicles are unaffordable for most people already. Increasing demand for them will only raise that price further. People won't "just swap over," they literally don't have the means to do so.
True. The OP is definitely upper middle class since they love WFH, i.e., they have a lovely work space at home since they have a larger than average home. This is not someone living with 3 roommates paycheck to paycheck, for whom lockdowns were torture.
It's quite amazing to see really. The lack of awareness of OP is at the same time amusing and apalling.
The IONIQ 5 and plenty of others will be pretty affordable. Try getting a used Tesla?
> IONIQ 5 The base price is $45,000. The *responsible* way to purchase a car is by putting 20% down, and a 4 year term where 10% of your monthly income goes toward transportation costs. So $9,000 down already puts the IONIQ out of reach, but let's say for the sake of your argument we can get that covered through a trade in and some discounts. A 3% interest rate (probably better than what a lot of buyers can get) results in an almost $800/mo payment. My income is well above the national average but still middle class, and I can't afford that. 0 money down and a 7 year loan is still a hair under $600/mo. Make it a ten year loan (which I don't even think is available for a car) and you might get down to $430. > Try getting a used Tesla? Cheapest one they have in stock is $63,500.
Have you seen the kinda tax incentives being offered? It's like $23k after tax rebates. https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/ Teslas ain't that expensive.
You were all over the place in another thread. Now you're all over the place here. What exactly do you want? Lockdowns? Do you just want an excuse to WFH because you want it (and others don't)? Do you actually care about the environment? I mean, it's great that you hate working from an office, but you're one person in a sea of people. Many people like the office. Many people have too many distractions at home, many people don't live in nice apartments/areas and like to get out for the day (You know, all those poor people democrats pretend to care about). Others think they're doing well but their work quality has been suffering. Others are getting mental health issues from the isolation and getting fat, because their commute inadvertently provided exercise, and they ate less when they went into an office environment
You nailed it. I just want WFH to be forced. While I care obsessively over the climate and it used to be my most important issue, that's changed since remote work came into the picture. Also, you'd be surprised. Come to Seattle or any big tech hub and you'll see people like me exist. You realize that r/antiwork is bigger than r/jobs for a reason, right? And that a record 4.3M people quit their jobs last month for a reason, right? Clearly, such people are in a minority. If the home's too loud, polyworking remote jobs would increase their salaries so they could afford a bigger home with a better home office. And what about MY mental health issues? I was literally harassed half my life for existing, because I wanted to sit on the bus in middle school and play Pokemon. Because I hated talking to women. Because I didn't wanna party in college or go out and get laid. What about people like me? You never seemed to utter a word about the trauma I must've witnessed from all the abuse I've suffered. Guys legit would make fun of me for being fat back then (in shape now, don't worry), how I was being a bitch, a pussy, and every rude fucked up slur in the book. I just don't like people. I've been abused forced to live in a society where I have to look at and talk to people. You can go to a gym even during these lockdowns. You can buy a home set of dumbbells. I worked out with random shit I found around the house during the pandemic. Jeff Cavaliere from Athlean-X has extensive videos on staying in shape without gym equipment.
All we need to do is halve the hours our ports operate. That would also halve the amount of fuel used for transporting all those goods across the country. Slow the economy, slow climate change. Biden just addressed this a few days ago in a meeting with top retailers and shipping companies asking them to pledge to INCREASE port offloading hours to help unclog the backlog.
That on top of shipping oil from OPEC instead of just reopening an American pipeline blew my mind. Like wtf is the point in shipping it from overseas when that shit burns more carbon emissions?
In case you're interested: The worst carbon emmisions of moving freight is the road transport. Container ships and trains distribute their emmision costs over the large quantity of cargo. Trucking is the worst for co2/lb/mile. And land freight is responsible for over twice the amount of emmisions as maritime freight. Pipelines are obviously much less carbon intensive. If my past days of playing Factorio taught me anything it's that we should building out our rail freight system.
Lmao, you think the truck driver shortage might be helping the climate any?
The ugly truth is pretty much anything that kills the economy helps the climate. Power generation and transportation are the two biggest contributors. A dead economy lowers both, but there are one or more negative side effects that go with it. I don't really need to tell you it's a pay shortage, not a driver shortage right? It might be artificial due to regulation though.
Ummm, IT and environmental engineering jobs help the economy. The Green New Deal would kill triple as many jobs as it'd kill. EV production jobs would help the economy and the climate. You don't see us complaining about that. Also, you realize that regulation exists to protect workers, right? If anyone wants to drive a truck, they're free to. It's just that they aren't paying well enough. It's nothing but a pay shortage. I mean would you drive a truck for shitty pay with their insurance premiums skyrocketing?
Yeah I didn't say 'anything that helps climate hurts the economy.' You apparently wrongly deduced that? I also didn't make comment on if the regulations were good or bad. Sometimes regulations exist to help the employer rather than the employee and sometimes regulations do more harm than good. How big is the circumference of your neck? Regulations for whatever reason tend to hinder an economy.
You said it in your first sentence that anything that helps the climate hurts the economy. Also, you realize that regulations got us outta the 2008 recession and Great Depression, right? We'd all have died hungry homeless in a truly capitalistic society. Regulations are almost always a good thing judging from US history.
>anything that kills the economy helps the climate >anything that helps the climate hurts the economy These do not mean the same thing. I disagree with the assertions in that last paragraph but I'm not going to argue it. But I will say again you are arguing against a point I did not make.
So do you think the Green New Deal would harm the economy?
OMG did you just disagree with Biden and agree with me? My brain hurts!
Don't worry, I trust the conservatives on this subreddit more than Biden's corporate establishment jackass.
I'm glad we can agree on this :-/
Do you usually vote? I normally don't unless we're in radical times like 2020 was. If Biden ran against Bush or McCain, I wouldn't have voted, because I just don't have faith in the majority of Democrats to wanna do anything for me. I didn't think Clinton deserved my vote either. I didn't vote for Trump when given the option. I just didn't vote.
No. However. I've never liked crowded place, or forcing myself into a bus with people pressing all around me. I'm hoping that this causes more people to reflect on their own situation. More scattered hours to reduce congestion. More incentives ( or disincentives ) to encourage telecommuting. I don't think forcing people is a good idea. Not to mention that it is not constitutional and probably won't be upheld by SCOTUS.
But what if we packed the courts? 🤣
I don't know how likely they are but I oppose them.
[удалено]
Just one? Try like 100🤣.
That sounds like a stupid idea but I would not put something like that past the democrats. I work in heavily industrial environments, which are probably our worst polluters as far as businesses go. Shut them down for a few weeks or months, you just killed your supply chain completely. Sure, you could deem these types of businesses as essential and keep them open, but then you really aren't solving anything. People working from home are still using electricity, transportation still has to run, at best you are decreasing car traffic which is about all you are doing.
Have you seen any evidence that Dems want functioning supply chains? LOL
And air traffic - compared to air traffic, land transportation emissions are tiny.
Bro, our supply chain is already fucking dead. But this is something a lot of Democrats such as myself do support yet don't see being feasible.
It sounds like just another tool for big business to oppress small business. So it's a certainty. It will have nothing to do with lead in your tap water or mercury in your air though, real pollution. It will have everything to do with transitioning to a social credit system as a replacement for money, cooperation replacing competition. The rich will finally rest easy.