Pizza_Rat
Winchester?
Hot take: it was a valiant effort by people with tremendous power and influence to do the right thing with the wrong tools. Blackrock et al. tested the hypothesis that companies can generate greater returns by doing good. In doing so they risked their reputation and relationships with their investors.
We all learned together that their hypothesis is wrong. One cannot add a constraint (ESG etc) without compromising returns, and the big money piles operate with mandates to maximize risk-adjusted returns.
It can, and will, get worse.
A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.
Or maybe we could work a unified coalition of voters around the implementation of a carbon tax, incremented over a period of years, to align those incentives?
Because a carbon tax incremented over a period of years would achieve the desired outcome with much less administrative burden and economic impact.
We should use fossil fuels sometimes - when it's worth paying the real cost!
Agreed! That convenience is called a negative externally. It is a cost that accumulates to everyone that is not captured in the manufacturing process. Implementing a carbon tax (which can start small, and increment predictably over a period of years) would re-align purchasing decisions to true costs.
All change is hard, but it is the best solution because it appropriately distributes costs with minimal complexity and no loopholes. And it sure beats doing nothing IMHO.
Carbon tax! Carbon tax!!
Carbon tax! Carbon tax!
Are all of these "moe" communities one artist?
No comment on the art, but the proliferation of basically the same content across dozens of communities is irritating. I'm tired of playing whac-a-moe.
Agreed. What a dumb article.