Using capitalism to reduce emissions
Using capitalism to reduce emissions
A lot of big polluters are publicly traded companies. Owning shares of US public companies means you can go to shareholder meetings, vote, and other rights.
What do all think of a non profit that runs and is funded with an endowment composed of big polluters like oil companies and using the dividends to fund climate initiatives? In the mean time, using the seat at the table to influence other shareholders to reduce emissions, which is in their long term interest anyways.
If the endowment dries up, mission accomplished. If it grows, more money to act with.
What do all think?
You're viewing a single thread.
the non profit industrial complex serves to launder the reputations of the ownership class without meaningfully addressing oppressive systems or threatening the status quo.
War planes and assault rifles are used by Russians to invade Ukraine. Should Ukrainians not use them to fight back?
Trains transport coal. Should we stop using freight trains?
That is how they are often used, yes. The NPO is a tool. It is used for nefarious things, yes. It doesn't have to be though.
Do you have an argument about why it is a bad idea other than you don't like NPOs because bad wealthy people use them for power and reputation management? We need power to make changes to address the climate crisis.
argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I'm not going to engage that.
you've yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism (which requires scarcity to the extent that it will create it where there need be none, and demands endless quarterly growth within a limited system) is a solution to the environmental destruction to which it contributes.
it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.
private ownership of capital is a race to the bottom, leading inevitably to unsustainable extraction of natural resources. The latter won't be halted or reversed without abolishing the former.
we need power to be distributed horizontally, not continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer actors.
argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I'm not going to engage that.
Your argument is you don't like the tool. My argument is we shouldn't not use a tool because bad actors use a tool for bad things. Not using a tool means we don't benefit from the good things it can be used for. I just gave examples demonstrating it.
you've yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism
Explain how this entrenches capitalism? I see it as working within the environment. Buying anything from a for profit company or working for a for profit company entrenches capitalism. Using a 401k does too. You can vote, run for office, whatever, but in a capitalist economy, you can't avoid participating in it, i.e. entrenching it.
it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.
I don't have any love for capitalism. I'm just a person that sees a problem and is doing their best to fix it. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't question my intentions because you don't like my idea. I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt. Deal?
your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.
news flash: if you do not own capital, capitalism's essential function is not to improve your material condition, but that of the capital owning class.
edit: civility
your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.
Ok. So is your proposition that capitalism NEVER serves the collective well being or that it GENERALLY doesn't. If it is the former, all I have to do is find a single case to prove it false.
Your argument sounded like it was this (correct me if I am wrong):
P: Bad people use NPO as a tool for bad things Q: NPOs are bad
P->Q
I was demonstrating that at best you can put the existential qualifier on that statement and not the universal. All I have to do is find a single good NPO. If you want to argue what it means to be good, have a PhD in philosophy as it has been argued about since Plato wrote Euthyphro. Probably before.
Edit: civility