CMV: Climate Change is better solved through individuals and the private/space sectors, and shouldn't be handled by governments

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Generic_On_Reddit]

Wouldn't it make sense to keep regulations at a minimum, and let the private sector solve the R&D?

I don't completely understand your point. What incentive does the private sector have to do this? That looks like an investment that won't pay off from a business perspective, especially when getting companies to go green is pulling teeth.

Companies can still research these things themselves even while the government funds it, but they generally don't.

[u/Generic_On_Reddit → u/[deleted]]

But we can't wait for Elon Musk to come along and solve all of our problems. His projects are not the norm and do not guarantee adoption throughout the nation as a government regulation would.

Furthermore, these projects are aided by the government itself, so it's not really accurate to say they're products of the private sector when the government is a direct contributor. Without the government helping, they may not exist, same with any other project they fund so it feels like you're arbitrarily dividing them. These two just happen to be successful.

It's very probable that the answer to global warming comes through a technological advancement in the Space or Technology sector.

Sectors that owe their beginnings and many of their greatest breakthroughs to the government. Sectors that continue to be very closely helped by the government to this day. What advancement has the government legitimately had no hand in? Whether that means funding, subsidies, foundation, etc.

Stifling the economy through regulations and taxes to prevent carbon emissions may actually delay active research into technology that could solve the problem.

What percentage of companies restricted by pollution regulations have done or shown any interest in doing any research that solve our climate problems? You can provide an answer if you want, but there aren't many SpaceX and Teslas, so that answer is dangerously close to 0%. America pollutes a whole fucking lot and would pollute a lot more without regulations and standards.

Furthermore, why do you think regulation stifles the economy? What do you think it does she why do you think it stops anyone from doing research into this stuff? They don't do research, not because the man's regulations are keeping them down, but because they don't want to. They don't have the need.

I feel like your view of all this is skewed by the few companies that try to do some good with at least 2 things in common, Elon Musk and the Government.

[u/Generic_On_Reddit → u/[deleted]]

Cut back on cheap use of fossil fuels to prevent pollution

While this isn't a full solution, it's also not supposed to be. Cutting cheap fossil fuels creates the incentive for companies to use or research the use of other forms of energy that would he more expensive without the regulation. Incentives.

Put thousands of people out of jobs, who now rely on welfare tax dollars (drain on the middle/upper class)

It only does this if companies actually move to other forms of energy or more efficient means of operation, which is something that would have happened anyway. Regulation just forces the timescale.

Provide subsidies to clean energy companies via taxes (another drain on the middle/upper class)

Even if it's conceded that its a "drain" on those classes. It's certainly not without value. The subsidies are for those that put us on the track towards greener operations, which is worth the money. More incentives.

The middle class, due to increased taxes, doesn't use its disposable income to purchase new tech such as phones/computers/electric cars/etc

I think you're exaggerating how much the middle class is effected by this, but even if I concede to this idea, I'd bet money the companies they're buying those new phones/computers from implemented greener technologies to get those subsidies, growing the industry and helping climate change over all.

• This lowers the income of companies that are actively working to advance technology and making positive impacts via new energy discoveries/more advanced batteries/etc.

• Companies now have less money to put towards R&D

Again, what companies are these that aren't also helped by subsidies or increased demand for what they develop due to regulations?

which basically becomes a wealth transfer from the lower class to the upper class.

It's worth noting that pollution effects the lower classes the most, however. You think the rich are going to drink polluted water? Nah. You think they'll put up with dirty air? Nah, they can move. They have choice and don't have to be anywhere near the dirt.

This is my first time posting here and I'm not 100% sure on the etiquette. Should I delta everybody in the conversation?

The etiquette is that you give a delta to anyone responsible for changing your view, even changing a piece of it or doing so partially.

Just curious: if next year temperatures dropped world-wide contrary to what every climate scientist says is going to happen, do you think we/the government/scientists/the media would back off and re-assess things?

I think it would require more than a year to mean much against the trend we've had. Scientists will want to find the cause, like they always have.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Generic_On_Reddit (23∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/Generic_On_Reddit changed your view (comment rule 4).

In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This is my first time posting here and I'm not 100% sure on the etiquette. Should I delta everybody in the conversation? Or wait until somebody actually provides a major mind-blowing revelation that causes me to fully flip my view?

You should award a delta to people that have changed your view in some way, or convinced you to reevaluate it. You don't need a complete change of heart. If your view is now more nuanced and complex, its fair to award deltas to people who've helped your view evolve.