2,852
edits
Time for Change.: Difference between revisions
→The solution: Stage 1 process
(→The solution: Stage 1 process) |
|||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
'''Ban loopholes.''' | '''Ban loopholes.''' | ||
Tax the rich. We need to tax the rich out of existence. As Thomas Piketty has pointed out (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/06/11/the-illusion-of-centrist-ecology/), cutting the purchasing power of the rich is the single most powerful way to reduce excess energy use and emissions. This may sound radical, but think about it: it is irrational—and dangerous—to continue supporting an over-consuming class in the middle of a climate emergency. We cannot allow them to appropriate energy so vastly beyond what anyone could reasonably need. | '''Meet Basic Needs''' - by transitioning away form carbon based fuels in the future this will create a basic need gap for the most vulernable. As such we need to protect people by establishing a firm social foundation—a social guarantee. We need to guarantee universal public healthcare, housing, education, transport, water, and energy and internet, so that everyone has access to the resources they need to live well. And as unnecessary industrial production slows down, we need to shorten the working week to share necessary labor more evenly, and introduce a climate job guarantee to ensure that everyone has access to a decent livelihood—with a basic income for those who cannot work or who choose not to. This is the bread and butter of a just transition. | ||
'''Tax the rich'''. We need to tax the rich out of existence. As Thomas Piketty has pointed out (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/06/11/the-illusion-of-centrist-ecology/), cutting the purchasing power of the rich is the single most powerful way to reduce excess energy use and emissions. This may sound radical, but think about it: it is irrational—and dangerous—to continue supporting an over-consuming class in the middle of a climate emergency. We cannot allow them to appropriate energy so vastly beyond what anyone could reasonably need. | |||
How can we do this? One approach would be to introduce a wealth tax. Make it tough enough that rich people will be incentivized to sell off assets that are surplus to actual requirements. We can also introduce a maximum income policy, such that anything over a certain threshold faces a 100% rate of tax. In addition to cutting excess consumption at the top, this approach will reduce inequality and eliminate the oligarchic power that pollutes our politics. | How can we do this? One approach would be to introduce a wealth tax. Make it tough enough that rich people will be incentivized to sell off assets that are surplus to actual requirements. We can also introduce a maximum income policy, such that anything over a certain threshold faces a 100% rate of tax. In addition to cutting excess consumption at the top, this approach will reduce inequality and eliminate the oligarchic power that pollutes our politics. | ||
| Line 71: | Line 74: | ||
'''Burn Zero Carbon''' - follow the advice of 100 Nobel laureates and several thousand scientists calls for a [https://fossilfueltreaty.org/ Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty] to do just that: an international agreement to end fossil fuels on a fair and binding schedule. We don't need '''[[net zero]]''' (reliance on future technology to suck carbon out of the air) we need aim at '''burn zero'''. Nationalize the fossil fuel industry and the energy companies, bringing them under public control, just like any other essential service or utility. This will allow us to wind down fossil fuel production and use in line with science-based schedules, without having to constantly fight fossil capital and their propaganda. It also allows us to protect against price chaos, and ration energy to where it’s needed most, to keep essential services going. At the same time, we need to scale down less-necessary parts of the economy in order to reduce excess energy demand: SUVs, private jets, commercial air travel, industrial beef, fast fashion, advertising, planned obsolescence, the military industrial complex and so on. We need to focus the economy on what is required for human well-being and ecological stability, rather than on corporate profits and elite consumption. | '''Burn Zero Carbon''' - follow the advice of 100 Nobel laureates and several thousand scientists calls for a [https://fossilfueltreaty.org/ Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty] to do just that: an international agreement to end fossil fuels on a fair and binding schedule. We don't need '''[[net zero]]''' (reliance on future technology to suck carbon out of the air) we need aim at '''burn zero'''. Nationalize the fossil fuel industry and the energy companies, bringing them under public control, just like any other essential service or utility. This will allow us to wind down fossil fuel production and use in line with science-based schedules, without having to constantly fight fossil capital and their propaganda. It also allows us to protect against price chaos, and ration energy to where it’s needed most, to keep essential services going. At the same time, we need to scale down less-necessary parts of the economy in order to reduce excess energy demand: SUVs, private jets, commercial air travel, industrial beef, fast fashion, advertising, planned obsolescence, the military industrial complex and so on. We need to focus the economy on what is required for human well-being and ecological stability, rather than on corporate profits and elite consumption. | ||
How do you pay for a social guarantee? Any government that has monetary sovereignty can fund it by issuing the national currency; think of quantitative easing, but this time for people and the planet. This is true for all high-income countries, although for EU countries it would have to be done in a coordinated fashion. The crucial thing is that to prevent any risk of inflation, we also have to reduce the purchasing power of the rich. And that brings us to the next key point. | How do you pay for a social guarantee? Any government that has monetary sovereignty can fund it by issuing the national currency; think of quantitative easing, but this time for people and the planet. This is true for all high-income countries, although for EU countries it would have to be done in a coordinated fashion. The crucial thing is that to prevent any risk of inflation, we also have to reduce the purchasing power of the rich. And that brings us to the next key point. | ||