ACism and global warming

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about limitations on industry, you should be equally worried about governments imposing anti-pollution rules on them. It's not like government officials have some special status that allows them to perfectly balance costs and benefits. In fact, many people agree that governments are substantially WORSE at this than the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not aware of current government regulations that would lead to such a destructive outcome. There is a a definite possibility that AC could. Even though it's only a possibility, I'd rather not play russian roulette on such an important outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're willing to allow government officials to make the call? Or have a referendum? Why is there this distrust of participants in the market but no such distrust of participants in a government or a vote?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain some people trust the markets more because they haven't been given enough power to really [censored] things up yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we've got a long history of watching governments blunder time after time so I sure as heck don't think putting your trust in them is any more rational. This has nothing to do with "belief" that the market will provide the solution in the form I want it. It's the belief, based on experience, that severe government intervention won't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market could decide that pollution should be at a level which the scientific consensus believes will cause long term, irreversible damage to the planet. Is this acceptable to you? Even if the majority of consumers want to save the planet, if the minority is not coerced into it as well then we could still be f***ed.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unlikely that a single judge will effectively rule against all economic and ecological development, similar to how a government leader isn't going to be able to declare Jump of a Bridge Day and watch as everyone jumps of bridges. And there's no higher court to appeal to when you don't like the government's actions, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unlikely? Unless legal precedents wouldn't exist in AC, but I don't see why not. And getting compensation for a reduced quality of life =/= jumping of a bridge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're making it out to be so when you express fear of catostrophic decisions resulting from the decision made by one judge who is not acting rationally because his dog just died. But I can play that game, too. What if the President's spouse burns the toast one morning? He might order the army to wipe out the population. Are you saying this can't happen? I don't see why not. QED, we shouldn't have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can play that game, but you fail. The judge here is making a very delicate decision. A few % points in either direction would lead to catastrophe for either business or the environment. The government, with a viewpoint that extends beyond punitive damages, vast reserves of researchers and advisers in different fields and on both sides and an incentive to get elected next term is far more qualified to make this close judgement call then Bobs Discount Disputes.

Just in case you missed it the first time round, a complex decision involving two parties with legitimate wants and grievances does not equal an irrational call for mass suicide or genocide.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really sure how thing work in the US, but in the UK there's 3 tiers (local, national and European) plus the ability to appeal. Things can still get [censored] up, but at lest you have safety nets against recently bereaved arbiters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private courts could have an appeals process. I not sure how "escalating" the "levels" geographically somehow makes the appeals process any more valid. And you're still stuck at eventually reaching the level where there is no higher court. Are you saying the highest court of the state is infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the more individuals involved reduces the chance of a [censored] up. You must know about sample size, I thought this would be obvious.