3 ms·

No, I disagree with the rebate thing. For one thing, low-income citizens don't need to be flying domestically (if they are, they're not "low income"). And a l

by magduf 7y ago

No, I disagree with the rebate thing. For one thing, low-income citizens don't need to be flying domestically (if they are, they're not "low income"). And a lot of low-income citizens are living car-based lifestyles that are frankly luxurious compared to poor people in other nations, and is costing society a lot. These people need to move to denser cities and take public transit. The only thing I'd support is subsidies to help them relocate from their rural homes to places where they don't need cars and can get jobs. All the other ideas are fantastic.

grayed-down 7y ago
How dare you or anyone to tell low-income individuals that they don't need to be flying. How dare you dismiss the problems and stresses of an impoverished life no matter where an individual lives. And how dare you suggest that individuals be compelled or coerced by authority to relocate to a place not of their choosing.
jdietrich 7y ago
A rebate was a key part of getting Canada's recent carbon tax through parliament. The standard arguments against pricing carbon are "it'll kill jobs", "it'll kill industry" or "it's just another tax on hard-working families". I think that any effective green policy agenda has to have a lot of direct and obvious quid-pro-quos to address these concerns. It's not ideal in a narrowly rational sense, but it's politically expedient. Some climate-related policies are going to be inherently painful, so we should seek wherever possible to mitigate that pain, spread it around equitably or ration it out over time. Getting people to transition to more sustainable lifestyles is obviously the goal, but uprooting a bunch of low-income workers has terrible optics and burns political capital that could be better used elsewhere. You're aiming for diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. The calculus is slightly weird in the US due to what I will politely describe as a unique political culture, but you can frame a lot of it in American political grammar. Call it the "war on weather" or something, appeal to the self-image of America as the world's moral leadership, sell it as every citizen's patriotic duty and use the term "common sense" a lot. Emphasise how it'll build a long-term economic advantage over China. If you think immigration is bad now, just wait until half of South America becomes uninhabitable. If we pass this R&D bill, we'll have a monopoly on this technology in the future. Green policies are eminently achievable in the US political landscape, but they need to be thoroughly decoupled from liberal rhetoric. https://globalnews.ca/news/5202108/carbon-tax-canada-2019-revenue/ https://globalnews.ca/news/5202108/carbon-tax-canada-2019-re...
- grayed-down 7y ago
  Yeah! And don't forget Shepard Fairey for the visuals. I hope you're incorporated because you could make a fortune in the agitprop business. Just sell the people what they never knew they needed.

by magduf 7y ago

grayed-down 7y ago

How dare you or anyone to tell low-income individuals that they don't need to be flying. How dare you dismiss the problems and stresses of an impoverished life no matter where an individual lives. And how dare you suggest that individuals be compelled or coerced by authority to relocate to a place not of their choosing.

jdietrich 7y ago

A rebate was a key part of getting Canada's recent carbon tax through parliament. The standard arguments against pricing carbon are "it'll kill jobs", "it'll kill industry" or "it's just another tax on hard-working families". I think that any effective green policy agenda has to have a lot of direct and obvious quid-pro-quos to address these concerns. It's not ideal in a narrowly rational sense, but it's politically expedient. Some climate-related policies are going to be inherently painful, so we should seek wherever possible to mitigate that pain, spread it around equitably or ration it out over time. Getting people to transition to more sustainable lifestyles is obviously the goal, but uprooting a bunch of low-income workers has terrible optics and burns political capital that could be better used elsewhere. You're aiming for diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. The calculus is slightly weird in the US due to what I will politely describe as a unique political culture, but you can frame a lot of it in American political grammar. Call it the "war on weather" or something, appeal to the self-image of America as the world's moral leadership, sell it as every citizen's patriotic duty and use the term "common sense" a lot. Emphasise how it'll build a long-term economic advantage over China. If you think immigration is bad now, just wait until half of South America becomes uninhabitable. If we pass this R&D bill, we'll have a monopoly on this technology in the future. Green policies are eminently achievable in the US political landscape, but they need to be thoroughly decoupled from liberal rhetoric. https://globalnews.ca/news/5202108/carbon-tax-canada-2019-revenue/ https://globalnews.ca/news/5202108/carbon-tax-canada-2019-re...

grayed-down 7y ago
Yeah! And don't forget Shepard Fairey for the visuals. I hope you're incorporated because you could make a fortune in the agitprop business. Just sell the people what they never knew they needed.