Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I see the emission of greenhouse gases as a completely different issue from something like the dumping of toxic chemicals in a lake, or other kind of pollution.

What's the difference between polluting the air and polluting the water? They look like exactly the same thing to me. Different pollutants, yes, but no significant difference that I can see...?

Well, in the first place, CO2 is not an atmospheric pollutant, in the ordinary sense of that word. It is a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere (and of the atmospheres of other planets as well), and has always been present in the atmosphere, at varying concentrations. Indeed, the Earth's entire biosphere depends upon it being present.

And, second, it is not toxic for any terrestrial organisms, in concentrations occurring in the Earth's atmosphere over the last several million years. Most people, I think, would consider those differences significant.

I agree with GE Morton on the above. In addition, it's a completely different situation because a company polluting a lake (or the air) with a toxic chemical is not the same as the company mining a fuel and selling that fuel to its customers who then burn it, producing CO2. If we were to regard that CO2 as a pollutant and then say "the polluter pays" what does that actually mean? Does it mean we all have to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to pre-industrial levels by un-driving our cars? Should we be condemning Thomas Newcomen for inventing the steam engine 300 years ago?

If a substance has the effect of polluting our environment, it's a pollutant. Yes, CO₂ is a 'natural' component of our atmosphere, in proportion. Too much or too little has the effect of pollution. Too much or too little oxygen would also 'pollute'. Any physical component of our environment is damaging if its concentration changes enough to alter the way our environment functions (or doesn't function).

I'm not interested in the minutiae of the pedantic meaning of "pollute", which only distracts us from the central point here. Our ecosystem is failing in many ways, and we are discussing one of them here. The OP asks us to consider whether geo-engineering might be a worthwhile tool to combat some of these failures. I think it (the OP) must assume that we will stop making things worse, as well as considering things like geo-engineering. Instead, we argue about whether CO₂ is really a "pollutant"....

[Pattern-chaser]

So, in talking about cleaning up mess, when talking about CO2 emissions, what are we talking about? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else? I presume we're talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels and therefore gradually reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2?

No, look at what's happening in New Delihi. They had to shut down multiple coal fired power stations to reduce record pollution levels. That's pollution coming directly from burning coal. More understandable for India than Australia, the latter having decades to utilise their nature advantages, and the opportunity to lead innovation. But the coal companies, with the help of a particular mogul whom I shall not mention, fought for BAU, and won, to the detriment of the Australian people.

So, to be clear, you're not talking about CO2 and climate change here? You're talking about local pollution from toxins released by burning coal? Like the smog in London before the clean air act?

I've been talking about CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) and climate change/global warming.

If burning the coal produces CO₂, and other pollutants too, is there really a reason to distinguish between them? Complex hydrocarbons and CO₂ are different chemicals, of course, but if all of them have a detrimental effect when released into the atmosphere, what is the point in discriminating? Referring back to Steve's original list, we need to reduce CO₂ back to pre-industrial levels, stop emissions of more CO₂, reduce emissions of more CO₂, and anything else we can think of that has a benefit. And the "anything else" would surely cover getting rid of the pollutants released by the burning of coal that are something other than CO₂.

[Steve3007]

If burning the coal produces CO2, and other pollutants too, is there really a reason to distinguish between them? Complex hydrocarbons and CO2 are different chemicals, of course, but if all of them have a detrimental effect when released into the atmosphere, what is the point in discriminating?

Because different gases and particles have different effects, some local, some global. Therefore they require different solutions and have different levels of urgency. For example, diesel cars are better than petrol cars in that they do more MPG so release less CO2 per mile, but worse in that they produce more harmful particulates that cause respiratory problems locally. So they're relatively good globally and relatively bad locally. Another example: methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It's worth making that distinction if we want to decide on priorities regarding the elimination of methane emissions versus the elimination of CO2 emission.

I don't think it makes practical sense to simply say: "I'm going to stop emitting anything that does any harm of any kind on any scale" without prioritizing.

Referring back to Steve's original list, we need to reduce CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stop emissions of more CO2, reduce emissions of more CO2, and anything else we can think of that has a benefit. And the "anything else" would surely cover getting rid of the pollutants released by the burning of coal that are something other than CO2.

So you think we need to reduce CO2 levels right back to pre-industrial levels? The consensus going into COP26 was that we need to stop increasing CO2 levels to the extent that warming doesn't exceed 1.5C. That is regarded as a compromise which avoids the worst effects of global warming while keeping the global economy functioning during the transition. Can you see the sense in that kind of compromise? Can you see the sense in any kind of compromise on this issue?

Almost everything in life is a compromise - a weighing up of the pros and cons of various courses of action. Electric cars are a compromise just like everything else.

[GE Morton]

The simple assertion is that without meaningfulness, a pattern cannot be possible.

That sentence is utterly incoherent. What is this "meaningfulness"? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to bear any relation to the definition of "meaning" found in any dictionary.

The meaning that is indicated is of a sort that applies on a fundamental level as precursor of value (meaningful pattern).

That one is just as bad. Please consult a dictionary and stick to the definitions given for the terms "meaning," "value," etc.

When it concerns morality, the assertion "to be of substance" is most applicable because while empirical evidence for morality or 'good' is impossible, relevance to physical reality may be said to be applicable, thus, morality may be considered "to be of substance".

Morality and "goodness" are two different things. The former is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. "Goodness" is not a real or natural property of things; it is a pseudo-property (an invented, or stipulated property) we apply to things we deem desirable, useful, satisfying, etc. Rules, including moral rules, are not "substances" per the ordinary meaning of that term.

You seem to be living in a conceptual and linguistic world of your own, psy. I doubt any further discussion between us would be fruitful.

[GE Morton]

I don't particularly want to get involved in the details of the argument you've been having with GE about what constitutes a subsidy. Clearly, being already a believer in minimal taxation, GE is not going to view the reduction of a tax as a subsidy. He's probably going to view it as a tax that shouldn't have been in place anyway.

I'm not an advocate of "minimal taxation" (how much is "minimal"?), but of fair taxation, defined as a regime in which each citizen pays taxes proportional to the extent he benefits from the government services for which those taxes pay. Since businesses benefit from such government services as street and roads, police and fire protection, national defense, management of natural commons, etc., they should certainly pay taxes proportionate to those benefits. And, of course, any tax imposed that exceeds the value of the government services a taxpayer receives is an unfair tax.

You could stretch the term "subsidy" to include any reduction of taxes, for any taxpayer, below the amount of benefits he receives, e.g., if Alfie receives X benefits from government services but pays (X-n) taxes, then other taxpayers are subsidizing Alfie's government services.

But if taxes are levied against income, then deductions for various business costs are not "subsidies," since income is revenue retained after costs.

[Steve3007]

I'm not an advocate of "minimal taxation" (how much is "minimal"?), but of fair taxation, defined as a regime in which each citizen pays taxes proportional to the extent he benefits from the government services for which those taxes pay. Since businesses benefit from such government services as street and roads, police and fire protection, national defense, management of natural commons, etc., they should certainly pay taxes proportionate to those benefits. And, of course, any tax imposed that exceeds the value of the government services a taxpayer receives is an unfair tax.

Yes, I realize that (because you've said it before) but there's always a trade-off between brevity and accuracy. It's difficult, when it isn't the central point of the discussion, and there isn't infinite time available, to always be precisely accurate in summarizing something in a sentence. You have to hope that in cases where you're summarizing what has already been said many times before, that it just acts as a memory jogger.

I phrased it as "minimal taxation" as a shorthand. Obviously, as you know, for various reasons, some people propose that each citizen should pay for taxes which fund things he/she doesn't necessarily benefit from (healthcare, education, etc). Clearly your view of taxes is "minimal" compared to them.

[Steve3007]

You could stretch the term "subsidy" to include any reduction of taxes, for any taxpayer, below the amount of benefits he receives, e.g., if Alfie receives X benefits from government services but pays (X-n) taxes, then other taxpayers are subsidizing Alfie's government services.

Bear in mind that X is the fair level of tax according to your definition of "fair", as you've defined above. Others disagree.

But if taxes are levied against income, then deductions for various business costs are not "subsidies," since income is revenue retained after costs.

That income would be profit - the revenue left over after costs. And, yes, business expenses or costs are generally tax deductable. We deduct them from our income before declaring that income in our tax returns.

But anyway, I said I wasn't going to get into this semantic discussion over the meaning of the word subsidy!

[Sy Borg]

Like GE, I think giant corporations are the future. Unlike him, I don't think they should have a saloon passage provided by indulgent ideologues on the right. Rather, corporations should be pressured, badgered and forced to make themselves accountable at every turn, at least as much as possible. Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen! Corporations given free reign and easy subsidies soon become flaccid, inefficient parasites, addicted to taxpayer handouts, easy EIS approvals and general bloat.

I've never noticed GE proposing that giant corporations are the future. As far as I can tell, he seems to be agnostic about the size of corporations, or companies, or businesses generally, so long as they operate in a completely free market environment in which the only taxes they pay are those that fund the enforcement of basic rights to individual liberty, and the protection of commons (i.e. classical liberal/libertarian). It's on the protection of commons that I think we find agreement when discussing climate change (the atmosphere being an example of a common.)

If one wants complete freedom for the most powerful entities, then he must see them as the future. It's not as though giving them the freedom to do as they wish will shrink them.

One cannot logically seek unrestricted freedom for gigantic entities without wishing to be ruled by them unless one has a blind spot as big as the overt and hidden subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. Kings are free to do as they wish. Everyone else has to obey rules (ostensibly) designed for utilitarian benefit - or for the benefit of the "kings".

[GE Morton]

If one wants complete freedom for the most powerful entities, then he must see them as the future. It's not as though giving them the freedom to do as they wish will shrink them.

One cannot logically seek unrestricted freedom for gigantic entities without wishing to be ruled by them unless one has a blind spot as big as the overt and hidden subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

Well, you're parroting contrived, inaccurate (and stale) lefty tropes there, Sy. I don't advocate "complete freedom" for anyone. I am not free to kill you, enslave you, or steal or destroy your property. Nor am I free to dump toxic waste into a public waterway, or help myself to the timber in a national forest. Neither is anyone else, including corporations.

I do see corporations as part of the future, at least the foreseeable future, since they are the most efficient means we've yet devised for marshalling and organizing people and capital, voluntarily, to undertake some complex endeavor. Corporations are nothing but people, and the only freedoms they have are the freedoms of the people who constitute them, which are the same as those enjoyed by everyone else.

And, of course, corporations don't "rule" anyone. Everyone who works for them or buys their products does so voluntarily, and unless you are among their employees or customers, they have no control or influence over you whatsoever.

[Sy Borg]

If one wants complete freedom for the most powerful entities, then he must see them as the future. It's not as though giving them the freedom to do as they wish will shrink them.

One cannot logically seek unrestricted freedom for gigantic entities without wishing to be ruled by them unless one has a blind spot as big as the overt and hidden subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

Well, you're parroting contrived, inaccurate (and stale) lefty tropes there, Sy. I don't advocate "complete freedom" for anyone. I am not free to kill you, enslave you, or steal or destroy your property. Nor am I free to dump toxic waste into a public waterway, or help myself to the timber in a national forest. Neither is anyone else, including corporations.

I do see corporations as part of the future, at least the foreseeable future, since they are the most efficient means we've yet devised for marshalling and organizing people and capital, voluntarily, to undertake some complex endeavor. Corporations are nothing but people, and the only freedoms they have are the freedoms of the people who constitute them, which are the same as those enjoyed by everyone else.

And, of course, corporations don't "rule" anyone. Everyone who works for them or buys their products does so voluntarily, and unless you are among their employees or customers, they have no control or influence over you whatsoever.

It's not lefty at all, it's just the situation as it stands. I'm not the ideological warrior here, just pointing out the bleeding obvious, even if that does not appeal to you.

If you do not believe in government, I wonder who is supposed to regulate the behaviour of corporations so that they don't break the law or exploit loopholes?

Corporations are not "nothing but people". Your view is akin to claiming animals are nothing but cells. You can replace any number of human employees of a corporation and the company remains largely the same, based on their governing algorithms (aka policies) more or less like the ship of Theseus. Emergence is real and it applies to humans as it does to other species.

There was a time when governments were there to represent the people, to counter the natural distortions of economies of scale. However, governments have increasingly shifted from that brief, ever more favouring corporate interests over that of the masses they are expected to represent. In that sense, corporations are increasingly taking control. Not all control is formal.

[Steve3007]

I've never noticed GE proposing that giant corporations are the future...

If one wants complete freedom for the most powerful entities, then he must see them as the future...

Only if he agrees that in the absence of antitrust laws monopolies will tend to persist to the point where only the single most powerful company in a given sector survives. I know from previous conversations/arguments that GE doesn't think that. You probably remember previous conversations with him in other topics about companies like Microsoft. I remember quite a long discussion about antitrust laws at some point in the past in which I think he expressed the view that antitrust laws aren't necessary and that monopolies naturally tend to get broken down by the actions of competitors in a free market.

(I'm taking your term "complete freedom" here to mean freedom inline with libertarian principles, not literally complete freedom to do literally anything.)

[GE Morton]

It's not lefty at all, it's just the situation as it stands. I'm not the ideological warrior here, just pointing out the bleeding obvious, even if that does not appeal to you.

Well, most of the charges you levy against corporations, far from being "bleeding obvious," are at best hyperbole, if not patently false, and are drawn directly from the left's book of catechisms. You can't plausibly deny being an "ideological warrior" while carrying their spear and shouting their slogans.

If you do not believe in government, I wonder who is supposed to regulate the behaviour of corporations so that they don't break the law or exploit loopholes?

Nor can you plausibly deny being an ideological warrior while distorting your opponents views and erecting straw men. I've never said I didn't "believe in government" (I don't even use the phrase "believe in"). I am a "minarchist," not an anarchist. Government is a necessary evil, and it should regulate corporations, and everyone else, to assure that they violate no one else's rights --- e.g., that they don't defraud their customers, expose their customers, employees, and the public to hidden risks, don't foul natural commons, etc. But they have no duties to provide anyone with any particular product, pay any particular wage or charge any particular price, provide anyone with a job, or pay taxes to support any government services from which they receive no benefit. Nor does anyone else. While they have an obligation not to harm anyone, they have no obligation to promote any politician's vision of the "public good." They are private organizations, created to benefit their investors, not government institutions created to benefit the public.

Corporations are not "nothing but people". Your view is akin to claiming animals are nothing but cells. You can replace any number of human employees of a corporation and the company remains largely the same, based on their governing algorithms (aka policies) more or less like the ship of Theseus. Emergence is real and it applies to humans as it does to other species.

You need to consider that analogy a bit more carefully. An animal's cells are locked in place, and have no choices as the function they will perform in the organism, or of the organism they shall serve. A heart cell cannot decide to become a kidney cell, and a human cell cannot decide to leave its host and join up with a walrus. Decisions as to what role each cell plays are dictated by the organism's DNA; decisions as what corporation (if any) an investor or employee will join, and what role they will play within it --- how much they will invest and what job they will take --- are decided by the individuals involved, who will be free to leave that job or disinvest at any time.

Yes, corporations, like jazz bands, football teams, model airplane clubs, law firms --- all human groups and organizations --- are nothing but people. That they may collectively hold certain assets or abide by the terms of an agreed upon charter doesn't change that fact. The only rights a corporation has are the rights of the people who constitute it.

There was a time when governments were there to represent the people, to counter the natural distortions of economies of scale. However, governments have increasingly shifted from that brief, ever more favouring corporate interests over that of the masses they are expected to represent. In that sense, corporations are increasingly taking control. Not all control is formal.

The word "control" has a specific meaning:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control

If this "informal" control you mention does not involve forcibly directing the actions of something or someone else, then you're again indulging in Newspeak.

[Sy Borg]

I've never noticed GE proposing that giant corporations are the future...

If one wants complete freedom for the most powerful entities, then he must see them as the future...

Only if he agrees that in the absence of antitrust laws monopolies will tend to persist to the point where only the single most powerful company in a given sector survives. I know from previous conversations/arguments that GE doesn't think that. You probably remember previous conversations with him in other topics about companies like Microsoft. I remember quite a long discussion about antitrust laws at some point in the past in which I think he expressed the view that antitrust laws aren't necessary and that monopolies naturally tend to get broken down by the actions of competitors in a free market.

(I'm taking your term "complete freedom" here to mean freedom inline with libertarian principles, not literally complete freedom to do literally anything.)

It's fairly clear that his assumption about monopolies naturally being broken down by the free market was wrong, along with his obviously-wrong belief that fossil fuel companies bear no more responsibility than anyone else for climate change, as though decades of sowing doubt in climate change didn't happen.

[Sy Borg]

It's not lefty at all, it's just the situation as it stands. I'm not the ideological warrior here, just pointing out the bleeding obvious, even if that does not appeal to you.

Well, most of the charges you levy against corporations, far from being "bleeding obvious," are at best hyperbole, if not patently false, and are drawn directly from the left's book of catechisms. You can't plausibly deny being an "ideological warrior" while carrying their spear and shouting their slogans.

That's just a lie. I have not any slogans, lefty or otherwise.

YOU are the ideological warrior here - don't throw your faults on to me. A pox on your mindless, tribal ideologies, I say! Political situations require pragmatism, not your teamster nonsense.

All I have done is say that fossil fuel companies bear special responsibility for climate change due to their lobbying and cynical casting of doubt on climate change science. https://theconversation.com/what-big-oi ... rds-170642

This should be factored in when governments consider subsidies. You disagree with this because of ... reasons.

If you do not believe in government, I wonder who is supposed to regulate the behaviour of corporations so that they don't break the law or exploit loopholes?

Nor can you plausibly deny being an ideological warrior while distorting your opponents views and erecting straw men.

I do not share your ideological affliction. That's your problem. I am a pragmatist, which you somehow perceive as being left wing.

Question: What new tax powers you would give governments to reduce endemic corporate tax evasion?

Yet, if governments cannot raise money through taxation - and you believe that tax is theft - then how are governments supposed to regulate companies that are much more more powerful and well-resourced than the governments supposed to regulate them?

You promote a libertarian ideology that can only possibly result in feudal style corporate rule, but you don't admit it. Libertarianism, like Communism, is great in theory but it cannot work in practice. Each ideology necessarily ends up with despotism.

Corporations are not "nothing but people". Your view is akin to claiming animals are nothing but cells. You can replace any number of human employees of a corporation and the company remains largely the same, based on their governing algorithms (aka policies) more or less like the ship of Theseus. Emergence is real and it applies to humans as it does to other species.

You need to consider that analogy a bit more carefully. An animal's cells are locked in place, and have no choices as the function they will perform in the organism, or of the organism they shall serve. A heart cell cannot decide to become a kidney cell, and a human cell cannot decide to leave its host and join up with a walrus. Decisions as to what role each cell plays are dictated by the organism's DNA; decisions as what corporation (if any) an investor or employee will join, and what role they will play within it --- how much they will invest and what job they will take --- are decided by the individuals involved, who will be free to leave that job or disinvest at any time.

Yes, corporations, like jazz bands, football teams, model airplane clubs, law firms --- all human groups and organizations --- are nothing but people. That they may collectively hold certain assets or abide by the terms of an agreed upon charter doesn't change that fact. The only rights a corporation has are the rights of the people who constitute it.

Obviously, analogous entities are not exactly the same in every way - otherwise it would not be an analogy but a statement of inclusive classification.

The idea that corporations are "just people" - implying that they are indistinguishable from a group of unorganised individuals - is a surprisingly naive claim.

Corporations are independent entities with their own particular interests that may or may not intersect with the interests of their constituent employees. Again:

"You can replace any number of human employees of a corporation and the company remains largely the same, based on their governing algorithms (aka policies) more or less like the ship of Theseus. Emergence is real and it applies to humans as it does to other species."

There was a time when governments were there to represent the people, to counter the natural distortions of economies of scale. However, governments have increasingly shifted from that brief, ever more favouring corporate interests over that of the masses they are expected to represent. In that sense, corporations are increasingly taking control. Not all control is formal.

The word "control" has a specific meaning:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control

If this "informal" control you mention does not involve forcibly directing the actions of something or someone else, then you're again indulging in Newspeak.

Weasel words to avoid admitting that the private sector has taken control of society.

Here's the undeniable evidence: For decades now, governments not closing tax loopholes that allow many corporations and their billionaire owners to pay either zero or minimal tax, year after year, pushing the tax burden ever more on to the middle class. Why? Because governments are not in control, corporations are.

[GE Morton]

It's fairly clear that his assumption about monopolies naturally being broken down by the free market was wrong . . .

Wrong? It has occurred time after time. In 1974 the US government launched its anti-trust suit against AT&T. That suit was settled in 1982, with the divestiture of the local operating companies, but with AT&T retaining ownership of its "Long Lines" (long-distance calling) division and its Western Electric manufacturing subsidiary. That resulted immediately in an increase in local telephone rates. Then, by the mid-1980s the Long Lines division began getting competition from new satellite communications companies, drawing away lucrative customers like television and news networks. And of course, by the mid-2000s cellular telephone companies had all but replaced AT&Ts former landline network.

Had the government waited another 10 years, AT&T's monopoly would have ended anyway.

In 1969 the government filed an anti-trust suit against IBM. "Thirteen years, four administrations, 66 million pages of documents, 724 trial days, 974 witnesses, 16,734 exhibits and tens of millions of dollars (no one is saying for sure) in legal fees later . . ." the case was dismissed as "without merit."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 4b69e3a63/

And, of course, in the meantime the advent of the personal computer ended IBM's (near) monopoly.

And then there was the Microsoft case. That near-monopoly was broken up, not by government, but by the growth of the Internet and the advent of small computers using the Apple or Android operating systems.

https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans ... -dominance

Those suits cost the companies (and, of course, their customers) and taxpayers millions of dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing.

. . .along with his obviously-wrong belief that fossil fuel companies bear no more responsibility than anyone else for climate change, as though decades of sowing doubt in climate change didn't happen.

Er, Sy, "sowing doubt" about climate change does not render the "sower" responsible for climate change. That is merely free speech. The persons responsible for climate change are the persons who burn the fuel --- a point you can't seem to grasp.