3 ms·

> I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution. A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone

by flukus 8y ago

> I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution. A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.

smsm42 8y ago
Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope. Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-67-year-low-trumps-america-rest-world-rises https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-... US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
- flukus 8y ago
  > Proven to do what? Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol. > Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall. > US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens. According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut. Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > but the sky didn't fall. You are trying to confuse two things - suppression of economic growth and total collapse of the economics, and claiming since the latter didn't happen it proves no claim of the former could be ever true. It doesn't work that way. > Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from? If you think it's important to do it, and many people like you do so, you could all chip in. We have some very wealthy people, billionaires, and more than one, that support doing something about this. Surely paying some money is the easiest way for them of doing something one could ever imagine.

by flukus 8y ago

> I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution. A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.

smsm42 8y ago

Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope. Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-67-year-low-trumps-america-rest-world-rises https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-... US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.

flukus 8y ago
> Proven to do what? Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol. > Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course. All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall. > US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens. According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut. Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
- smsm42 8y ago
  > but the sky didn't fall. You are trying to confuse two things - suppression of economic growth and total collapse of the economics, and claiming since the latter didn't happen it proves no claim of the former could be ever true. It doesn't work that way. > Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from? If you think it's important to do it, and many people like you do so, you could all chip in. We have some very wealthy people, billionaires, and more than one, that support doing something about this. Surely paying some money is the easiest way for them of doing something one could ever imagine.