5 ms·

If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following: 1

If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following: 1. Ban all air travel 2. Ban all consumer goods made in developing nations. (a large contributor to China and India's carbon footprint) 3. War with countries producing a large carbon foot print if they refuse diplomatic efforts to meaningfully curb emissions. 4. Eat only plants and insects. 5. No cars (battery or otherwise). 6. Culling or otherwise slowing the population. If one is not willing to adopt all of these (and more unmentioned) as part of their own lifestyle and political views one does not truly believe climate change poses as great a danger as it is made out to be. In fact, it is proof there is a particular political end in mind and climate change is a convenient excuse for those in power to meet their own political ends.

gpm 7y ago
I think climate change is an existential threat with a small but not zero chance of wiping out humanity (probably indirectly by sparking WW3). I think those policies would be an existential threat with higher probability of leading to a war that wipes out humanity, not to mention impossible to pass in a democracy.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war (which is a TERRIBLE idea, war is VERY energy intensive and extremely wasteful, never mind the untold suffering placed upon the low-income, poor soldiers and civilizations who will die unnecessarily).
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war This is going to be the most cynical possible of takes, but I just don't see how this is politically viable in a place like the United States. The government is gridlocked and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the United States military is a massive CO2 emitter, so this would likely drive the dual deficits into even more dangerous territory because, let's face it, we're not going to demilitarize in any meaningful way.
- throwaway1777 7y ago
  Increases in gas taxes were the reason for the Gilets Jaunes protests in France, so raising taxes could lead to war in itself. Also broad scale carbon taxes will likely impact the poor more than the rich.
  - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
    The nice thing about carbon taxes is that they raise revenue. You can then redistribute this revenue out to people to further address income inequality, or at least offset the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
    - throwaway1777 7y ago
      So tax people and then give the money back? I thought the point of carbon taxes was to fund green tech like solar and electric cars?
      - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
        If you tax carbon, the invisible hand of the market will incentivize creation of greener alternatives. Much cheaper to administer and less likely to have crony capitalism than subsidies.
      - WhompingWindows 7y ago
        The point of carbon taxes is to price the negative externality of carbon emissions. Since we aren't allowed to dump nuclear waste or human refuse in public parks, why should we get to dump GHG's and child-asthma-gasses into the air for free? What is done with the revenue from the carbon tax? That's up to the policy, it could be revenue neutral w/ a progressive rebate that helps the poor, or the revenue could be used to support EV chargers, renewables, efficiency upgrades, it's all up to the policy makers. In WA, USA, they tried to pass a carbon tax, but it failed because some moderates/GOP wanted revenue neutral w/ taxpayer rebates, whereas the left wanted climate equity and green-new-deal-type policies. So, there is real, carbon-tax-killing debate over what to do with revenues.
  - 7y ago
VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
We can participate in the society we live in while recognizing the deep flaws it has and try to make meaningful changes. We can't just "ban all air travel" without civilization as we know it ceasing to exist and causing unfathomable loss of human life by war, famine, and disease. We have to try to change the tires on a moving car, so to speak.

gpm 7y ago

I think climate change is an existential threat with a small but not zero chance of wiping out humanity (probably indirectly by sparking WW3). I think those policies would be an existential threat with higher probability of leading to a war that wipes out humanity, not to mention impossible to pass in a democracy.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war (which is a TERRIBLE idea, war is VERY energy intensive and extremely wasteful, never mind the untold suffering placed upon the low-income, poor soldiers and civilizations who will die unnecessarily).

ianleeclark 7y ago
> Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war This is going to be the most cynical possible of takes, but I just don't see how this is politically viable in a place like the United States. The government is gridlocked and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the United States military is a massive CO2 emitter, so this would likely drive the dual deficits into even more dangerous territory because, let's face it, we're not going to demilitarize in any meaningful way.
throwaway1777 7y ago
Increases in gas taxes were the reason for the Gilets Jaunes protests in France, so raising taxes could lead to war in itself. Also broad scale carbon taxes will likely impact the poor more than the rich.
- aaronblohowiak 7y ago
  The nice thing about carbon taxes is that they raise revenue. You can then redistribute this revenue out to people to further address income inequality, or at least offset the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
  - throwaway1777 7y ago
    So tax people and then give the money back? I thought the point of carbon taxes was to fund green tech like solar and electric cars?
    - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
      If you tax carbon, the invisible hand of the market will incentivize creation of greener alternatives. Much cheaper to administer and less likely to have crony capitalism than subsidies.
    - WhompingWindows 7y ago
      The point of carbon taxes is to price the negative externality of carbon emissions. Since we aren't allowed to dump nuclear waste or human refuse in public parks, why should we get to dump GHG's and child-asthma-gasses into the air for free? What is done with the revenue from the carbon tax? That's up to the policy, it could be revenue neutral w/ a progressive rebate that helps the poor, or the revenue could be used to support EV chargers, renewables, efficiency upgrades, it's all up to the policy makers. In WA, USA, they tried to pass a carbon tax, but it failed because some moderates/GOP wanted revenue neutral w/ taxpayer rebates, whereas the left wanted climate equity and green-new-deal-type policies. So, there is real, carbon-tax-killing debate over what to do with revenues.
- 7y ago

VWWHFSfQ 7y ago

We can participate in the society we live in while recognizing the deep flaws it has and try to make meaningful changes. We can't just "ban all air travel" without civilization as we know it ceasing to exist and causing unfathomable loss of human life by war, famine, and disease. We have to try to change the tires on a moving car, so to speak.