5 ms·

Opposition to a carbon tax is much more down to earth. The people who will mostly be paying carbon taxes are rural people who rely on automobiles for transport,

Opposition to a carbon tax is much more down to earth. The people who will mostly be paying carbon taxes are rural people who rely on automobiles for transport, and need more energy to deliver power, plumbing, and goods over longer distances. There's a reason why urban people favor carbon taxes and the rest do not: the former won't be paying nearly as much. And since rural people tend to be poorer this makes a carbon tax highly regressive. Offering tax credits for reducing carbon emissions is fundamentally the same thing, but people oppose it because many times the people earnings these credits still use fossil fuels but are switching from coal to gas. Many oppose any development of fossil fuel power, even if it reduces emissions.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most. It's not at all, because the reason for opposition is directly relevant to the question of which failures to address the reasons for opposition are, in fact, “blocking actions” that harm our survival the most. Perhaps more importantly, it's relevant to the fix instead of blame issue of which approached to address opposition are likely to be most fruitful in improving our survival chances. Which is, to me, the more important question: I'd rather human civilization survive than be able to efficiently place the blame for it's collapse.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Sure, but that was not the context of my statement and not a discussion I'm interested in having here. Also, (and this is the real reason for this reply) that was some pretty bad use of italics. You just made your text harder to read mate, and honestly I just skimmed it.
- manfredo 7y ago
  It is highly relevant. Failure to understand the reasoning of the opposition makes it hard for those that do want to reduce emissions to gain office, which drastically reduces the ability to introduce changes to limit climate change.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most. It's not at all, because the reason for opposition is directly relevant to the question of which failures to address the reasons for opposition are, in fact, “blocking actions” that harm our survival the most. Perhaps more importantly, it's relevant to the fix instead of blame issue of which approached to address opposition are likely to be most fruitful in improving our survival chances. Which is, to me, the more important question: I'd rather human civilization survive than be able to efficiently place the blame for it's collapse.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Sure, but that was not the context of my statement and not a discussion I'm interested in having here. Also, (and this is the real reason for this reply) that was some pretty bad use of italics. You just made your text harder to read mate, and honestly I just skimmed it.
manfredo 7y ago
It is highly relevant. Failure to understand the reasoning of the opposition makes it hard for those that do want to reduce emissions to gain office, which drastically reduces the ability to introduce changes to limit climate change.