6 FREE MARKET Climate Solutions

[@TomRanger-v4o]

Some commenters are missing a key point or two about the technology neutrality of the equity Clean Tax Cuts (Equity CTCs) proposal. They Climate & Freedom Accord proposes that each nation replace conventional subsidies (that DO transfer wealth to the unprofitable and DO pick technology winners and losers) with equity CTCs (tax rate cuts that CANNOT transfer wealth or support the unprofitable or pick technology winners), to be used in the 5 sectors that produce 80+% of emissions: transportation, energy, electric power, real estate (buildings), and industry. CTCs are 100% technology neutral within each sector. Government is not picking technologies. Technologies are up to the innovator and the customers. The tax rate reduction rewards a metric of emissions reduction in core business and products. With respect to application to other sectors, it is up to each nation to decide what externality issues are most material to their economies and societies. Nations that are concerned that equity CTCs not only be technology neutral but sector neutral as well, can apply CTCs to all other major sectors to address other environmental or efficiency issues, also in a technology neutral manner. So economy-wide, there can be an equal X% performance bonus tax rate cut rewarding the reduction of the most serious negative externalities. So CTCs can be both technology and sector neutral. The other main problem with your argument, @CuriousPhilosophy, is that you are ignoring the problem of negative externalities. How do we deal with negative externalities? Free markets can do so to an extent. But their response is slowed by the free rider problem, which means that policies are needed that take into account either the cost of the externality, or the value af avoiding the externality, in order to reduce externalities more quickly. Negative incentives tend to backfire, so a positive incentive approach, like equity CTCs, ultimately will have better impacts. No policy that addresses a market failure will be perfect, but equity CTCs probably offer one of the best options.

[@freesk8]

Wonderful! Thanks for defending the free market! :)

[@TomRanger-v4o]

Thanks!

[@TomRanger-v4o]

About time the libertarians woke up to the fact that, like it or not, free markets decarbonize faster than controlled markets. It turns out the Invisible Hand has a green thumb!

[@CuriousPhilosophy]

I honestly lost it on Clean Tax cuts . This is so wrong I had to watch that part 3 times and checked I hadn't miss clicked on a socialist video . How can you argue at the same time - subsidies are bad because centralized governement pick winners and losers instead of letting the free market decide. And - Tax cuts (where the centralized government pick who deserve them and who doesn't) is good because it promote clean innovation ? It's fundamentally the same thing. You are exactly arguing for the same things as people favoring subsidies for electric cars industry, and wind turbine and so forth ... This is absolute madness.

[@bobsteve4812]

Relative to a carbon tax, it benefits good behaviour rather than penalize bad behaviour. Relative to subsidies or ‘picking winners and losers’ it makes sure companies don’t pollute with little to no consequences, as is the case in many countries without penalties for carbon emitting, like the US

[@CuriousPhilosophy]

@@bobsteve4812 Oh you're one of those. I tell you "A > B is the same as B < A" and you answer "B < A is better because instead of having A > B we have B < A" .... If you benefit A instead of B, Then relatively, you penalized B instead of A. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. Plus It's still the government who chooses who to benefit. And on top of that, it's still paid for by either taxes or money printing. It doesn't really matter if you increase taxes to give out subsidies or if you increase taxes to reduce taxes somewhere else.

[@bobsteve4812]

@@CuriousPhilosophy There is a very real difference here. If there was, say, a carbon tax many large companies would likely just pay it, while smaller ones wouldn’t be able to afford to and either reduce emissions or go out of business. Meanwhile keeping taxes the same as always, but reduce them for firms that don’t pollute means firms of all size would want to reduce emissions. Besides, on this issue in particular I don’t see the problem with the gov choosing winners and losers given this is bad behavior that many companies are very lazy to address unless forced too, especially given the largest polluter are large companies that often don’t even directly sell to regular consumers.

[@TomRanger-v4o]

@CuriousPhilosophy: You're missing a key point or two. Climate & Freedom Accord proposes that each nation replace conventional subsidies (that DO transfer wealth to the unprofitable and DO pick technology winners and losers) with equity CTCs (tax rate cuts that CANNOT transfer wealth or support the unprofitable or pick technology winners) to be used in the 5 sectors that produce 80+% of emissions: transportation, energy, electric power, real estate (buildings), and industry. CTCs are 100% technology neutral within each sector. Government is not picking technologies. Technologies are up to the innovator and the customers. The tax rate reduction rewards a metric of emissions reduction in core business and products. With respect to application to other sectors, it is up to each nation to decide what externality issues are most material to their economies and societies. National that are concerned that equity CTCs not only be technology neutral but sector neutral can apply CTCs to all other major sectors to address other environmental or efficiency issues, also in a technology neutral manner. So economy-wide, there can be an equal X% performance bonus tax rate cut rewarding the reduction of the most serious negative externalities. So CTCs can be both technology and sector neutral. The other main problem with your argument, @CuriousPhilosophy, is that you are ignoring the problem of negative externalities. How do we deal with negative externalities? Free markets can do so to an extent. But the free rider problem exists, and means that policies are needed that take into account either the cost of the externality, or the value af avoiding the externality, in order to reduce externalities more quickly. Negative incentives tend to backfire, so a positive incentive approach, like equity CTCs, ultimately will have better impacts. No policy that addresses a market failure will be perfect, but equity CTCs probably offer one of the best options.

[@TomRanger-v4o]

@@CuriousPhilosophy Actually, the CTC proposal is paid for by eliminating conventional climate subsidies, which are economically and environmentally counterproductive.

[@SangoProductions213]

The first argument is correlation vs causation. 'Green' as an ideology has captured the west, and pretty much the west exclusively. And they are also the only (relatively) free markets. You cannot say confidently that it's more than correlation. Unless you're going to assert that DEI interventionism, and dropping bombs on the middle east, is caused by free markets as well. But damn you take a long time to make the rest of your other point: Yes. Competition leads to innovation. Freer markets create more competition. to a point. Then power accumulates into a single monopolistic entity. Power always attracts power.

[@TomRanger-v4o]

No, not really. Freedom is exactly what allows citizens to express a political preference for a cleaner environment, and the wealth to make that happen. Anyone who has witnessed the environmental horror show in China or the former Soviet Union with understand that freedom, and the lack of it, do indeed have huge environmental consequences.

[@JohnB-nq4js]

​@@TomRanger-v4o carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant.

[@freesk8]

The most powerful and long-lasting monopolies are all backed by government power. Market monopolies that do arise from time to time, seldom last longer than a decade or so.

[@galou0090]

Blud hasn't read about creative destruction and is doing a false conclusion when stating the end state of competition is monopoly

[@SangoProductions213]

@@galou0090 Buying out the competition is a fairly regular occurrence. Or playing market manipulation games like using your vastly superior funds to lower prices beyond profitability, until the competitors are out of the market. Then there are "natural monopolies"... Most people have, at best, 1 internet provider in the US, just as the most basic example. Even with some government efforts to force competition. (Thank god for Elon, and actually giving an option... to some of us. But you could hardly call setting up a global network of extreme speed satellites to be an exactly... accessible option for competition.) You can ideologically hold to the idea that there wouldn't be monopolies under free market, and just go "Free markets were just never tried"... But it inevitably happens, even if violence remains off the tables.

[@rontogunov282]

The origin of the climate problem is cost externaliities; fossil fuels are artificially cheap source of energy because the unjustly ofset part of the cost to the commons. Unless the full cost of goods/services are embedded in the final price, cost externalities will always favour unsushainabre practices. Carbon tax is a just and effective way to level the playing field from which the free market can take over. But we need common universal ground rules that everyone abides by. Cost externalities are the source of the problem and must be that target for solution.

[@nco_gets_it]

"could the next solution come from Peru or Kenya?" I sure hope you are not betting your future on that. LOL

[@fjohnson9749]

What about what people NEED due to where they live and what they do? An EV may be good for just driving around town and getting groceries but what about carrying and/or towing loads? What about areas that flood easily and may have 12/14” of water somewhat regularly? You want to TAX me out of my 4x4 pickup truck? No thank you.

[@DarkHorseSki]

The first video kind of ignored one big issue of the time... LEADED GASOLINE.

[@TomRanger-v4o]

Hey, well there are a LOT of related issues. They did a great job tackling the really big ones.

[@DarkHorseSki]

@@TomRanger-v4o yes, but let's be very clear and admit that leaded gasoline was the biggest issue.

[@videakias3000]

that's a very long video just to say "free markets barely do anything for the environment on their own". the dumbest part was the tax cuts. why give credit to the markets for an incentive given by the government?

[@TomRanger-v4o]

A tax rate cut is the removal of a burden artificially placed on the market by the government. So this is not a gift. It is the removal of an imposition. The market if freer than it was because the barrier to capital flows has been removed. You may have missed the point...

[@govindvijay.j1177]

just look at free economy vs CO2 emited per capita graph☺

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

Why is democracy good for the govt but not within the business? Shouldn't all workers (corporate civil servants) be granted a share of the company (company citizenship)? Shouldnt it be one shareHOLDER one vote in the business, akin to one person one vote in the govt? If you think not, then why isnt it ok to have an absolute ruler for the country? He has property rights too and can do whatever he wants. Sure, he could have a board of directors elected by shareholders, but only those whith the biggest shares can make a difference.

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

...

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

Error 404

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

Disappearance protection

[@vindiesel6695]

Agreed. Democracy sucks ass becuase your vote counts just as much as the significantly smarter people who made this video.

[@SangoProductions213]

OK. Lead by example. Quit your job. Create a business. Probably fail about 10 times. After 10 years, and some untold amount of lost money, get some sort of success, and then give everyone who has no investment in your company, beyond being a check every week, an equal share of the company. You will personally see why that's not a thing. This is not even including the fact that a 16 yo cashier probably has 0 idea what the company needs, in order to be profitable. (Even if they were fully on board with the idea, and not just wanting their own money right here and now.) And it being nearly impossible to fund raise, when you explicitly lay out that you will dilute their shares, at cost to the company, so you'd be losing all of your own money in both the successful and failed ventures. Unless you're deceptive. And the fact that this will make expanding the business actively detrimental to all share holders, because the increased profits have to then be increased by more than what the shares would be diluted through the expansion. So, even if everything went perfectly right...it would basically be doomed to be insignificant. As far as the argument about government and business. Know one thing: They are not the same. They don't have the same goals. They don't have the same methods. They don't have the same allowance. If a new company pops up, you are not allowed to fire bomb them. If a country pops up in your country, you are obligated to fight them off.