Capitalism could work, if the framework was setup to allocate the environmental impact to the company using that resource.

A 'credit' system worked to stop NOX and Acid Rain, no reason it couldn't be used to reduce CO2.

Have to separate "Capitalism" the concept, from the "I'm changing the rules just for me to profit".

"Capitalism" can work well with regulations. The people that are against regulations are not "pro-Capitalism", they are "pro-Greed". Nothing in capitalism says you can't have regulations to prevent things society doesn't wan to happen.

Just current interpretation of capitalism is wrong.

Don't know about everywhere, but in Europe acid rain got stopped by direct regulation, not a credit framework.

Both can work.

My understanding is that in US, they used Emissions Credits, and this allowed a 'market' for those credits. This was more palatable to the segment of the country that are against regulations of any kind. But once there is a market, then it is ok.

There are some good points to an emissions market, it does allow accountants and corporations to determine a 'cost' that can be used in budgeting, and they can then us that as justification to purchase equipment. And it does allow the shifting of the 'cost' to the worst polluting plants. So in some ways markets are good, they steer the allocation of funds. The anarcho-capitalist types just need to understand that capitalism can be guided in this way, we know it works.

Completely Agree, Capitalism combined with right boundary conditions ie. limits, regulations, credit systems, or whatever, have to be used. The current system rewards those that manage to make use of the 'commons', and by that way socializing the costs (pollution, waste, etc.) while privatizing gains.

Given the contents of their bio, I suspect they’re trolling.

See the thread below: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=unpopular42#37543571

And just to be clear, climate regulations are not the same as pollution laws