4 ms·
Sure, that would be better, but we do not live in fantasy land. You are making best (but unreachable in today's political climate) the enemy of good. On furthe
by krastanov 5y ago
Sure, that would be better, but we do not live in fantasy land. You are making best (but unreachable in today's political climate) the enemy of good.
On further thought, it would be best if both the pipeline and the oil transport by trucks/trains are taxed out of existence.
- fighterpilot 5y agoIs it infeasible? Wouldn't the pipeline operators happily agree to a tax or levy as part of their permit if the alternative is that they have to shut down?
- useragent86 5y ago> You are making best (but unreachable in today's political climate) the enemy of good. From another perspective, you are doing that: fossil fuels will be a necessity to some extent, if not forever, for centuries more. They are used for much more than just generating electricity and transportation. What you advocate will make that necessary use of fossil fuels more expensive, reducing standard of living, and more polluting, harming the environment--that which you claim to care about most. Absolutism is generally problematic.
- krastanov 5y agoThe claim that they would be needed for centuries more is fairly unfounded. Especially if we point out that we will have zero-carbon fuels that are chemically equivalent to fossil fuels but created by carbon capture powered by renewable energy (we are already playing with tech like that today, let alone centuries from now). But yes, using the word "absolutist" was in bad taste.