"We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate-it was the fullness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from "resignation" ... There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast-for we had not yet found the way."

--The Antichrist

it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth
— Xtrix
— Joshs

Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.

Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you. — Xtrix

He certainly was laughing at something.

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power)

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs

Without taking him to be a demigod, I like much of Nietzsche. But this I think is either flat wrong or else points to deeper truths via equivocation, which Nietzsche was fond of (cf. his notion of virtue).

Either there is a ubiquitous reality we will or will not conform to, or there is no ubiquitous reality: no uni-verse, no cosmos, no reality proper.

Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously.

He certainly was laughing at something.

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs

Exactly. Even he would be laughing at you.

Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians.

But again, this is changing the subject: I never once said there needs to be a universal perspective. But to take it out of the abstract bullshit you seem to want to engage in, I'll make it concrete: the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. For all intents and purposes, it's most certainly true that we're heading for disaster unless something is done to prevent or mitigate it.

True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it.

Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously. — javra

We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think).

In the real world, climate change is already happening all around us because of an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels for human activities like electrical power, transportation, producing cement and steel, etc. Simple. We don't have time to dick around with the nature of "truth."

True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it. — Xtrix

I do my best.

Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians. — Xtrix

All ‘truths’ are mere appearances which emerge out of value systems. I agree that within a particular value system , there are normative conventions and constraints , but value systems continually change and do not become closer to any final truth. Furthermore , one might argue that conservatives are thinking from
within a different value system than liberals. Within the conservative value system, some ideas further values better than others. This is also true of the liberal value system. But what furthers conservative values is not the same as what furthers liberal values.

Will to power marks this endless relativity and flux of value systems. The only ‘truth’ for Nietzsche ( and Heidegger , Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others who follow Nietzsche) is this incessant , non-progressing flux of becoming.

All ‘truths’ are mere appearances which emerge out of value systems. — Joshs

Fantastic. Or maybe all value systems are appearances of truths! :chin: :yawn:

Fantastic. Or maybe all value systems are appearances of truths! — Xtrix

This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche.

This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche. — Joshs

Yeah, or this -ism or that -ism. (Someone's taken philosophy classes.) All well and good, and I like to classify and define and read and interpret dead thinkers too.

But that's not really this thread. So try the next assignment: try mulling things over for yourself, in particular the real world you're currently living in. Then try to identify the problems, and ask what can be done to solve them -- and where you fit in with those solutions.

That's really the crux of this thread.

I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me.

I do not dispute climate change and I think protecting the environment is of upmost importance. These are indeed important issues. Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. I only think behavior should be influenced by example rather than through religious enthusiasm and tyranny.

I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me. — NOS4A2

Yes, which is a reality — a reality you want to equate with Nostradamus and Revelation.

Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. — NOS4A2

Whether you’re confident or not is irrelevant. Talk to a few experts and survey the evidence— Google “climate tipping points,” etc. See how confident you are then. Is it guaranteed? No. But we should all be acting like it is; if we don’t act that way, and don’t treat it like the emergency it is, we’re dead. That’s obvious. I hope that isn’t the case— but I’m not confident about it.

We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think). — Xtrix

I thought myself to be aiming for tact there. Speaking for myself, just because something was said by Mr. Nietzsche or some other great doesn’t automatically make that something worth being taken seriously, nor, I’ll say it, true - lest one succumbs to authoritarianism. The ubiquitous truth of there being no ubiquitous truth being one such. I’ll add to the examples you’ve given that of the proverbial ostrich who finds the predator disappears as soon as it places its head in the sand, and then gets gobbled up by the predator. Inaccurate predictive capacity, that. My main point being that truth, which is of itself immaterial, matters more than the material stuff that so many claim to be all there is. But, in guessing your thoughts, I agree that I’m likely digressing.

I’ve heard so called truths from people claiming that the planet is cooling, that global warming is caused by more recent occurrences in the sun making humans not culpable, and so on.

So, in regard to truth, global warming, value schemes, and such, a simple argument for human caused global warming:

P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)

Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:

C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.

For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid?

-----
* For which quotes such as this can be found:

According to a study published in Scientific Reports if deforestation continue in current rate in the next 20 – 40 years, it can trigger a full or almost full extinction of humanity. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Recent_history_(1970_onwards)

Maybe it won't be that bad, but it certainly won't be good.
-----

As for those who think such claims are alarmist nonsense, the proverbial ostrich comes to mind. Don't know the extent to which I'm preaching to the choir, but I guess I'll find out.

Yes, I'm in agreement that something about public consciousness needs to change.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.
— Xtrix

Awesome — frank

But how could that help??

If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?

One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable.

I don't discuss the science anymore. There's no point.

But I don't understand the closet hippies comment. — Manuel

Our ideas of normalcy were formed by idealists living in times of relative stability and abundance. As such, they are misplaced, anachronistic, counterproductive.

P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)

Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:

C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.

For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid? — javra

This is excellent. I commend you.

But how could that help??

If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?

One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable. — baker

It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.

People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker.

This is already underway, as I mentioned. It's not just theoretical -- it's happening. But it's not happening quickly enough, and I don't think the fundamental dogma (the religion of neoliberal state capitalism) has been questioned as much as it should be -- although even that is changing.

Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.

Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.

But it's not happening quickly enough — Xtrix

Exactly.

Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.

Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.

People generally seem to believe there is an important difference between intentionally doing something that can result in outcome X, as opposed to going on as usual and letting outcome X happen on its own.

Intentionally becoming frugal is a deliberate attack on the economy that will likely result in its collapse, and relatively quickly at that. This is something people will feel responsible for.
Whereas doing "business as usual", even though it will probably also result in economical collapse, is not such an attack. This is something people will not feel responsible for.

People could probably adapt and become more frugal, and theoretically, this might even be possible to do gradually enough to prevent the economy from collapsing. But by then, it'll probably be too late for the planet.

Yes, but the entire premise is faulty. There's no reason to believe the economy is "collapse," in fact there most economists think it'll result in much more growth. It's a couple industries that need to especially be dismantled, and several practices we need to end or find alternatives for. All are available. But it'll take money and political will. The more we pressure them into it, the better chance we have -- since clearly they won't do it on their own.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." It has almost nothing to do with individual sacrifices, as we're lead to believe. It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. These decisions lie in the hands of our leaders, who need to be held accountable. The public didn't choose any of this directly, these are decisions made by people with "special interests," and they simply have more power to influence the world than the vast majority of us. That can change very quickly. Won't be easy.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." — Xtrix

To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products.

It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. — Xtrix

How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such?

The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those.

It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.

People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker. — Xtrix

I could easily see it going the other way though. You know, that knee-jerk reaction of falling back on the instinct of saving oneself in the first place, and maybe those closest, in bad times.... let's build that wall etc.

I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem...

I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems.

So yeah, anyway you slice it, it's going to hurt.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal."
— Xtrix
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products. — baker

Production of products comes from major industries, which we use the state to regulate/subsidize/monitor, etc.

Radically decreasing consumption isn't the real issue, although we've been taught to believe it is. So we can stop eating meat, use better lightbulbs, shop at the Farmer's Market, reuse, recycle, get solar panels, etc. -- and it won't do a thing. Even if millions do so. The major emissions come from industry, what gets produced in that industry and how it gets produced. Other countries seem to do it all just fine, with little emissions per capita next to ours, and it's not because the people shut off their lights or are all less materialistic -- it's because their governments put measures in place that reduces emissions -- public transportation systems, renewable energy investments, etc.

It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments.
— Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such? — baker

Are you really asking how legislation and trillions of dollars of investments would change carbon emissions? I gave some examples above. Take public transportation. That would be a huge investment, and would save us a lot of pollution and a lot of traffic. People are in favor of it, but aren't given that option -- because investments haven't been made in it, unlike in other countries. Ask yourself why. It's not because of the stupid, ignorant, greedy masses. Likewise with electric cars -- we could very easily subsidize these to lower the costs, and invest in EV stations all over the country. Biden is proposing measures for that as we speak. That's been delayed for decades for a simple reason: the oil, gas, and automobile industries don't want it. That wasn't a choice the people made.

We can go on and on.

The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those. — baker

Yeah, this is just a mistake.

Maybe the law has no power over murderers and thieves...? Of course legalization has the power to change a country's collective behavior -- there are plenty of examples.

I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem... — ChatteringMonkey

It's true that information is out there, but unfortunately that doesn't mean much. That's clearly not resulting in a healthier, educated, happier society. What's needed is real education and real awareness. That has to occur from person to person, preferably in the real world, but it can happen online too.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing.

I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect. — ChatteringMonkey

But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita (of the major emitters, unless you count Canada as a major emitter at #7, but that's arguable). That's significant. There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies.

But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH.

It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems. — ChatteringMonkey

China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal.

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing. — Xtrix

I agree in principle that this is the way to go, but for that to have an effect on this particular problem, I don't think we have the time. That kind of basic cultural shift doesn't happen overnight....

But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita. That's significant. — Xtrix

I'm not an American, I'm viewing it from a different perspective I guess. I don't disagree that the US could have a lot more impact than most other countries, but still it can't do it on it's own, it is a global coordination problem.

There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies. — Xtrix

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. — Xtrix

Maybe I need to look into it some more (feel free to share sources that could educate me on this), but I don't think you get around the fact that green energy is just more expensive... I know, not if you would include externalised costs, but the point is that they are not included now. If energy is more expensive, products are more expensive and you loose a competitive edge... which is why I think this is ultimately a coordination problem. Everybody needs to get on board or your economy will suffer... in relation to others, which is how economies suffer.

China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal. — Xtrix

The figures for emissions sure would have me fooled.

But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH. — Xtrix

This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about how the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity. — Xtrix

My point is that if everybody is not on board, or at least the biggest polluters like China and the US, the earth will be destroyed anyway, even if you destroy your economy right now.

And let's be clear about this, the earth will not be destroyed if we can't solve the problem. It will be very very bad for a whole lot of biological life on earth, possibly/probably something akin to the five great mass extinctions we had in earths history. A lot of life will die off, some amount will most likely survive. This is in no way meant to diminish the problem, hard to diminish a problem by comparing it to mass extinctions anyway, it just seems better to say it like it is to pre-empt accusations of doomsaying.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing. — Xtrix

Some people are aware, some are deliberately deluding themselves, some are being fooled, and some don't know.

I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. All our evolved responses for dealing with a crisis situation are at best useless and at worst actively counterproductive when faced with something like climate change. Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. Unfortunately, the behaviour we need to change includes that of those in power. But I think at this point it's more productive to ask how we can make people act in certain ways as opposed to warning them of the consequences of inaction. People will simply keep choosing inaction, because the facts are not suited to affect human psychology in the way we need it to be affected.

I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. — Echarmion

Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. — Echarmion

I sympathize with this, and it's certainly true. But I see it as more about where we place the emphasis. Much like the nature/nurture dichotomy, how beliefs effect behavior and vice versa is essentially inseparable in real life, but can be abstracted and isolated in thought. Sometimes useful, but in my opinion not in this case.

What we care about is action, yes. Behavior. I personally don't care much about what people believe -- if they're Christian, or Republicans, or capitalists, or Satanists. I care about what they do. But it just so happens that propaganda, misinformation, and false beliefs account for much of the behavior we currently see around us -- from voting for a degenerate sociopath, to QAnon, to the Big Lie of a stolen election, to climate change denial, to a Flat Earther, etc. It's exacerbated by social media.

So this is why I stress awareness and education in this so-called "awakening." I don't think people would be doing the things they are doing if they weren't being duped by powerful corporate and political forces, especially the media. The media, after all, is where we get most of our information about the world -- whether from Washington or Iraq, from science to entertainment. How that's framed matters a great deal, and like the big tech companies, it's not neutral. There's an agenda behind a lot of this, almost always monetary.

The freer the country, the better the propaganda.

Thanks. I'm relieved it didn't fall on deaf ears as it usually has.

Maybe I need to look into it some more (feel free to share sources that could educate me on this), but I don't think you get around the fact that green energy is just more expensive... — ChatteringMonkey

In case it wasn’t known, the IMF reports that over 6% of the global GDP is spent in providing welfare … oops, the correct term for this when concerning corporations is “subsidies” … to the fossil fuel industry. Without this corporate welfare, fossil fuels would not be as inexpensive as they are relative to renewables. And a laissez faire attitude would be taken to competition among energy producers (quite likely resulting in both greater innovation in the production of and lesser prices for renewables). But the latter is not the type of capitalism we live in.

Also worth considering:

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) phasing out fossil fuel subsidies would benefit energy markets, climate change mitigation and government budgets.[25] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#IEA_position_on_subsidies

Thx for the info.

I didn't read the whole report yet, but it seems like they also count the non-inclusion of 'externalised cost' as subsidies, which I agree should be taking in account... but the point is they aren't, and so from a competitive point of view, as the cost paid by enterprises, they are cheaper.

Also note that China is again the biggest offender here. They subsidise everything, there isn't even a real difference between private and public sector there, to the point that 'free competition' with them is not a real possibility from the beginning.

Also note that China is again the biggest offender here. They subsidise everything, there isn't even a real difference between private and public sector there, to the point that 'free competition' with them is not a real possibility from the beginning. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it's why I think that the solution can only be via some form of global governance, toward which we are already inching our way toward. Brings to mind the - acknowledged toothless - global 15% minimum corporate tax that was recently in the news. If laws are not universally applied, those who don't pollute (as much) will be economically destroyed by those who do. Still, the devil is in the details. For instance, given all the surveillance that we have and the economic oligarchy that is largely in charge, it could just as easily turn into a global totalitarianism. But, paraphrasing what I think by now is an adage, if we prepare ourselves with the worst in mind we may well be pleasantly surprised.

Brings to mind the - acknowledged toothless - global 15% minimum corporate tax that was recently in the news. — javra

Yeah, this was long overdue... even if 15% isn't a whole lot compared to what regular people pay.

I do agree with your point, this can only work if applied globally, because the economy is global.

The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems.

The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems. — ChatteringMonkey

The only thing I can currently think of in regard to this is that for it to stand a chance of working there must first be an ideal that is aimed at; one that most folks are not opposed to. Headaches will occur one way or another. But in the absence of such ideal that serves as a common cause for most, I can't foresee the possibility of good results. And I think this is where @Xtrix's notion of a global awakening comes into play. Still, in seeing how many have had big problems with the wearing of face masks during the current pandemic, it will take considerable effort to bring such global ideal about.