3 ms·

Same can be said for not having the individual choice to destroy the climate for the next generation. Right?

• kareemsabri 8y ago
  To some extent. It's a hard problem. As I mentioned originally, it's difficult to get a bunch of non-cooperating people to share things that are collectively owned (like air). People want to move themselves and their stuff around, which pollutes. I genuinely don't know the answer, but there are a lot of things that damage the environment for future generations (who, I agree, are not represented well enough in our decision making). If this is a climate change thing, there's a lot of things to do. If it's a congestion/quality of urban life thing (as I read it), it's a bit of a different discussion. Here are a few options that would restrict individual choice to reduce air pollution. - banning air travel more than 3 times per year (turns out propelling giant hunks of metal through the sky releases a lot of CO2) - insisting all new cars be electric - banning cars in cities - limiting the purchase of meat to a low amount per person per week - a limit on consumptive spending (buying newly manufactured goods) annually
  • CalRobert 8y ago
    Or.... just make all that stuff expensive.
    • kareemsabri 8y ago
      Yep, as I suggested in my original comment.
    • emit_time 8y ago
      Taxes (or tax credits etc.) to price in externalities
  • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    > options that would restrict individual choice That's technically true but frames the conversation in a biased way.
    • kareemsabri 8y ago
      Do tell.