Should fossil fuel companies be forced to pay for the environmental damages they cause?

But you know that the "smoke" on the picture is just steam, right?
How do you even treat artictles like that seriously. Dude clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

You can't even own property in the US, so what property rights?
All you can do is pay a shitload of money, to own the right to pay a shitload more money to the (((government))), for eternity.
New slaves.

>blames CO emissions on capitalism
What do you blame it on, then?

should china and india pay for all the pollution they generate?

Attached: 434.jpg (580x535, 98K)

hey look, another article from the same author....

Attached: taxes.png (621x860, 392K)

>oil and gas company drills for supply
>sells supply to consumers, including power companies, industry, and individuals
>they then burn the gas and oil for their purposes, releasing CO2.
>somehow the companies extracting oil and gas are the ones to blame.

test

Rising human population. Wouldn't need that many cows or coal fire stations if we didn't let the Africans breed. Coaxing white people everyone to become eco-vegans won't do shit compared to nuking Africa.

How about fire for start. FYI, Capitalism ended with introduction of central banking on a global scale 100 years ago.

>Wikipedia
>source
Pick one

>forced to pay for
Let me guess, who gets the money Shlomo.

Only if Jews pay for the damages they have done to Mankind.

They sell that oil and gas knowing that using it will ruin the environment (and potentially bring and end to all human civilization).
Oil and gas companies also actively hinder and lobby against alternatives to their products.
If a pharmaceutical company creating a food supplement that makes your skin fall off, and then buy and sue and bully any possible competition out of market, and then have the government sanction and endorse and force the usage of their product, I'd say that yes, they are pretty damn responsible for making people's skins fall off.

This is evidently false, and a blatant (and racist) red herring.

Attached: CO2-emissions-per-capita.jpg (3400x2400, 627K)

>Not Real Capitalism
I see capitalists hire workers for a wage. Looks pretty capitalist to me!

>watch as the kike avoids you
my shock? well you might just have to imagine it

Actually, the entirety of this guy's work looks like it can shortcircuit a conservative's brain.

Attached: robinson.png (841x8343, 872K)

Lol did he went from commi to ancap in 2 weeks or what is his reasoning?

>oil and gas companies get message
>close shop tomorrow
>no one can drive to work
>but my electric cars
>rolling blackouts from not enough power generation to meet demand
>society quickly falls to the dark ages
>billions starve as infrastructure collapses
>only a few hundred thousand left after a decade
>Roaming the land scavenging like a bad episode of walking dead

Kek! Read some of these, have to say there are better writers on that side of the political spectrum. His arguments start out good but then rapidly lose momentum.

Attached: false_prophets.jpg (621x800, 49K)

>have to say there are better writers on that side of the political spectrum
like who...?

(his articles are a major reason why I turned into a leftist)

Because people in Communist countries work for Jelly Beans? Do you even have Jelly Beans in Israel? Btw. The income belongs to the state and the state determines what portion can one keep as long as income tax is in effect.

...which is why none of this will ever happen.
Fossil fuel companies won't just "close shop" one day to bring about an (early) apocalypse.

Increased efficiency would be the only solution to that general issue ... but that would require investment (not even 'new' technologies, just rigorous application of those already established plus good planning) and this money instead goes into artificial growth to outcompete in a broken global market. The disease in the end is the free flow of money, kept alive and at maximum for some to leach off it.

Attached: take_my_eyes_for_what_Ive_seen.png (400x842, 755K)

We wouldn't be in this situation if they were enforced for the last 150 years.
But don't complain about the dust. America is stronk. America is superpower and you are standing in the way of progress if sue the coal power plant for blacking your laundry.

He's a libertarian socialist.

There's a reason why many Marxists call communist countries a form of state capitalism.
A lot of leftists call the current system in western countries state capitalism, too. But that has little to do with income taxes.

If they can't pay their bills, they most certainly will close.

That sure is a strange combination. I wonder how he fits this all inside his hat.
Some of the articles kinda match libertarian thought even if they don't seem to at the surface but others I'd have to read to know where he is trying to get at.

Wikipedia as he mentions is a good example of how do decentralize things and run "public services" without the government. But that only works for non scares goods. Open source is great because you don't loose anything by contributing.

>per capita
Jesus fuck, that’s retarded. Here Is a real chart that doesn’t try to demonize the US

Attached: 493DA462-DB27-4122-8188-7EB16F50E83A.jpg (1479x935, 299K)

The EPA doesn't have to pay for the damage it causes, why should anyone else?

Libertarian socialism is a real thing, you know. It's been around since forever. It's basically "anarchism-lite".

>I wonder how he fits this all inside his hat.
Simple - go listen to one the most prominent contemporary libertarian socialists explain how it works:
youtube.com/watch?v=6mhj-j0z-fk
It's actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it for even a couple of minutes. Capitalist societies are characterized by the use of state power to consolidate, support and enforce private power. Private profits are shielded, while losses are socialized (e.g. "too big to fail"). Monopolies are protected, regulations are used for the benefit of large firms instead of the benefit of the average man, and political power and economic wealth form a symbiotic relationship through lobbying and corruption.
As Marx said: "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Right-libertarians are correct in seeing all this, what they get wrong is the supposed solutions. Their movement and ideology are astroturfed by the same corrupt interests they supposedly oppose.
Libertarian socialism is where the real resistance is at.

Attached: what-occupy-protesters-are-upset-about-what-tea-party-members-are-upset-about-venn-diagram.jpg (960x813, 131K)

I brought up the "per capita" thing as a response to 's bullshit about overpopulation and Africa.

Please show causation.

Greenhouse effect.

>Wikipedia
Kek. I thought jews were supposed to be smart

If you don’t think that niggers aren’t a problem, you’re a typical conniving kike. They may not be an environmental issue now, but they will be.

If property rights were real, women wouldnt have the right to vote.

>Open source is great because you don't loose anything by contributing
anything other than your time and mental effort

I am sorry, I usually do not remember names here (recognized some of the article pictures though, visual memory ... call me an ignorant fool if you like). NYT and Washington posts imho have writers with similar views but a more ... sober style. What disturbs me about Robinson is that he starts out with really well laid-out arguments, hard fact-y stuff ... only to later on devolve into ever more softer 'moral lessons'. At least this is how it feels to me. Mind you, he is good at it, I give him that. Clean, direct, with a certain spirit behind it. Classical priests, maybe a decent revolutionary. But he goes in with the false premise I'd say, at least for my tastes ... he is well aware of the cognitive capacity of most of his audience and that shows in his arguments going slowly soft. A good spin, almost perfect, made to either be slavishly absorbed or impotently raged against (both reactions a good priest expects ... they live off polarization). But that is about it. Also, what puts me off most (same with most German and Austrian writers from the left but ALSO many from the right): he lacks the cutting, sarcastic wits I value about a good thinker. But that is just personal preference.

>(his articles are a major reason why I turned into a leftist)

We both know this statement is just for demonstration purposes. You're much smarter than that, Shoshanna ... but I'll let it slip this time. ;)

Attached: mmmhm_lecker_lecker_apfelstrudel.gif (500x189, 472K)

>greenhouse effect
Then why is there no significant warming in the troposphere where CO2 collects?

>We both know this statement is just for demonstration purposes
I swear it's true, though.
Discovering actual leftist writings (e.g. Jacobin) and leftie YouTube (e.g. Shaun) got me prematurely off the gamergate --> "libertarian" --> fascist pipeline.
Robinson's essay about Socialism as a Set of Principles was just beautiful.

I ain't no climate scientist.

But without a government who would bail out the companies and impose regulations? I am not arguing for anarcho capitalism or a private law society just asking.

It's not literally "without a government", it's just about decentralizing and democratizing power.

Maaaybe I mistake you for someone else then. :3
I'll cite a bit:

>The San Francisco judge had poor arguments for why fossil fuel companies should be let off the hook. For example, he weighed “the social utility against the gravity of the anticipating harm,” contending that “the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal” and “all of us have benefitted,” and asking “would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair… to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?” This strikes me as desperate excuse-making rather than sound, consistent reasoning.

But it IS sound consistent reasoning. His next argument, that these companies do not act out of 'humanitarian' but purely economical motivation is true ... but that is, with our current technological level, a necessary evil unless we intend to cripple the very society we have built. Look at Germany, the 'Energiewende' has turned into one huge mess, an engineering nightmare, a huge waste of resources with grave collateral environmental damage due to faulty application of technology. Instead, as I mentioned before, what you SHOULD persecute by law would be inefficiency instead. Penalties for wasteful operative handling in industry, not a carbon tax. It would fix our problems in part (and in accordance with what is currently technologically feasable), generate jobs and net value by investment into efficiency technologies. But here these big companies DO actually oppose meaningful development ... if the industry would suddenly require 30% less oil it would REALLY hurt their business. But instead of this reasonable approach the guy follows another daydream, a delusion ... the mass psychosis of those who see the problem but fail to find an adequate solution due to cognitive restrictions they were born with.

>Q61I1PT9
why are you here?
you clearly are masterful in pilpul

You retards need to learn what "pilpul" actually means (if, indeed, it means ANYTHING outside of the very specific context of jewish scholasticism)

How about we lynch those that are behind suppressing the technology that would displace fossil fuels in the first place? Maybe the wonderful folks that decided to shitcan the gold standard and made the world revolve around a phony dollar tied to oil?

I really don't understand the mindset of gold cranks.
It's such an odd obsession.
I just never figured out what it stems from if not pure memetics.

Also, I see much more problems with the more direct environmental damage inefficient industry does than with carbon emission. If you only knew what amounts of heavy metals alone are liberally blown into the nearest river, poisoning swathes of lands, the oceans, the whole fucking food chain. But no outcry here. Nothing. Why? Because it is currently not marketable, it is not suited to induce the mass panic and polarization required to keep the whole shitshow running. A forgotten problem. One of many that may actually wipe us off the face of this planet. But it is inconvenient ... as for example the rare earths required for the so-lauded solar power are mined under conditions that simply are an atrocity against the ecosphere. But that would not fit the narrative. It would implode all the daydreams of a better world. In the end, the only thing that may save this planet would most likely be going a way similar to that proposed by Pentti Linkola. End the humanflood ... and give the survivors a chance to realize our manifest destiny.

Attached: linkola.jpg (700x461, 112K)

This is prime bait

Thailand also does a lot of pollution!

You're not looking at the reason why we are kept stuck using fossil fuels, that's why. The world reserve currency is tied to oil, and if they let technology displace oil that cookie crumbles. There has been viable magnetic technology to displace gasoline in cars for decades for one example. The fact that the governments of this world cry about global warming and want to tax the people for carbon use when they hold all the cards is adding insult to injury.

You will after fiat velocity picks up and you'll see what it's real value is.

Fossil fuel emissions kill millions of people every year.
An estimated 500,000 yearly in the EU alone.

Leftists dont believe in personal property rights, or individual rights.

Maybe in your specific case.
I was talking about the libertarian-ish "sound money" "abolish the fed" bitcoin crowd more generally.

>real value
that's not very austrian economics of you!
Value is for Marxists!

No matter how you slice it, "rights" are a spook.
Your "rights" begin and end at what the Powers That Be allow you to do.

I don't really give a shit what they ultimately decide to "back" a new currency with, and we will probably die in apocalyptic hellfire before that would ever happen anyway, but the petrodollar has put us at a stand still.

so that's the power of the Jewish high IQ everybody talks about...

Attached: 1549243978183.png (625x910, 74K)

This. We don't "own" property, that's why we pay taxes on it. Its an illusion.

>sue fossil fuel companies
>they have to raise prices to stay viable
>you pay more to them because lol you still need fuel to live
>planet still just as fucked up and dirty because money doesn't remove pollution from the environment
>net result: all you did was pay more for the same thing
>flag
>checks out

Attached: when you see it.jpg (450x520, 20K)

Incidentally, I've seen plenty of Marxists who generally agree with the right-libertarian skepticism of fiat currency. But that skepticism comes from Marxian economics: Gold is a true "holder of value" because it has taken real human labor to extract it from the ground, while fiat currency can only represent value, never hold it intrinsically.
It isn't a criticism, but an observation (like so much of Marxism, anti-Marxists constantly confuse descriptive analysis for normative prescription).

Do you like living in the stone age?
Because who will produce power for you if you tax them to hell?
Who will produce your favourite electric appliance if you bash them for pollution?
Who will grow your food and how much will it cost when pesticide and fertilizer plants close down?
How will you commute when fuel prices soar?

Electric prices increase - factory prices increase - fuel prices increase - common goods prices increase - governments shut down

Why wouldn't you take multiple samples across the globe to get correct measurements? Who would do such a deceptive thing as take a single measurement and use it to apply to the entire globe's oceans? How truly evil.

And there is your answer. If government would stay out of economy, allow big players to collapse and economy restructure, financial system would be robust today, innovation would be rewarding, we would not be stuck with 50s technology today.

Get in here

>austrian economics

Hah! Got you there, Shoshanna!! :D

Attached: au_revoir_shoshanna.gif (320x180, 1.22M)

>Implying this is a bad thing

Attached: 1499821928322.png (1764x1746, 163K)

You're extremely over-optimistic about the power of the "free market".
The problem is not government intervention per se. It's BAD government intervention. There's plenty of good times when the government should intervene in the economy to regulate, augment and outright replace the market.
I mean, as an example, if you want "innovation", you should be lobbying for a "big government". Practically all major technological breakthroughs of the 20th centuries were the direct or indirect results of government funding and programs.

Allowing "big players" to "collapse" is not enough - the government should be actively destroying and preventing concentration of private power. It (or other, perhaps out-of-state socialist institutions) must also shield the "small players" from the inevitable fallout, otherwise you're advocating for a disaster.

>Practically all major technological breakthroughs of the 20th centuries were the direct or indirect results of government funding and programs.

This. But only because someone managed to sell a good idea to those dorks.

>the government should be actively destroying and preventing concentration of private power.

Depends on the government.

Attached: dies.gif (591x251, 723K)

I have to agree with Teddy on this one

Attached: teddy.jpg (318x159, 11K)

uh huh

battery manufacturing is worse than fossil fuels

This question misses the point probably on purpose. The real issues are chemical and pesticides that VERY OBVIOUSLY destroy surrounding private property.

>government as source of innovation
A proof that we live in socialism.
Government is waste because it forces people to do what is not their priority.
>government destroying concentration of private power
Yes, punish the successful, so you can retain your monopoly in innovation.

YES & silicone valley should be taxed at the same time for all the damage they do to the fabric of our global society. We spend ungodly amounts of resources cleaning up leftist bullshit....trillions of dollars needed to clean up leftist fucking bullshit.

Attached: fuck silicone valley tax them.png (1515x887, 588K)

Israel should not have a voice here

You are the problem.

>implying global warming is bad

take away silicone valley's tax shelters and raid their fucking bullshit accounts.

>Government is waste because it forces people to do what is not their priority.
As opposed to the Free Market, I supposed?
The sad thing is that you're not even wrong. Government is, almost by definition, coercive. But your choice of words is telling. Government is "waste" - spoken like a true growth fetishist. Which is besides the point, anyway, because as even a quick look at a productivity growth chart will show, economies tend to grow the fastest when the government is at its most interventionist.

>Yes, punish the successful, so you can retain your monopoly in innovation.
Is dismantling private power really a form of "punishment"? It'd be like saying the American Revolution "punished" the British Crown.

mods mods mods

They would just pass the cost on to the consumer through a price increase.
It will be the consumers paying for it in the end.
Even if we stopped the pumps and switched to renewables tomorrow, China would keep burning fossil fuels.
Then you could ask China to pay a fine and they would tell you to fuck off.

>rich cunts move from old energy to new energy
>rich cunts get together to ban old energy to destroy competition
>oy vey save the planet!!

>sea level rise

What "sea level rise"?

Attached: global warming con artist al gore's beachfront mansion.jpg (640x571, 86K)

They are real, but that States we forms are simply not applying them properly.

Funny thing is that when I say to leftists that you should be able to sue someone for property damage over pollution, they say it is terrible.

Do you own an electric car? Answer the question.