4 ms·
The whole issue here is in thinking about pricing carbon as a "fine". It represents fixing the economic incentives. If a beef burger is 10x more environmental
by esotericn 7y ago
The whole issue here is in thinking about pricing carbon as a "fine".
It represents fixing the economic incentives.
If a beef burger is 10x more environmentally damaging than a vegetable one, it should cost approximately ten times more.
As I've posted below - this is child-level logic. It's time for us to sort our shit out. There really is no option.
We need stable homes, nutrition, and a bit of entertainment. We don't need no-holds-barred competition to literally use as much of everything as we possibly can; and we _certainly_ don't need that to be apportioned essentially randomly - the more damaging activities should cost more.
If it bothers you to be confronted by that - if your first thoughts are "economic damage" and the fact your life might slightly change - I'm sorry for you. Because you really are fucked, you're coming down with all of us.
- indemnity 7y agoYou’re not using effective arguments that will change someone’s point of view. I believe climate change is coming but trying to convince someone they should change because they are a Bad Person if they don’t change their ways, or that some unspecified type of fuckedness is looming, is not very successful. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf
- esotericn 7y agoWhen the carbon tax happens they won't have a choice. Or it won't and we die in a fire. So it goes. I don't aim to convince anyone; just stating how it is. I think most are beyond saving.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]