12 ms·

To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while cor

To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.

duxup 5y ago
"more about control" Control what though? It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair). But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  > It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt. Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
  - duxup 5y ago
    Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.
  - duxup 5y ago
    I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics. I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.
- trhway 5y ago
  "some are more equal" (in this case - "CO2 emitted by some is less damaging"). Classic control.
- whatever1 5y ago
  The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them that energy is bad for the environment and that they have to pay tax or buy expensive energy (renewables)
  - stavros 5y ago
    We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".
    - whatever1 5y ago
      It's easy to point your finger and say that "we are in this together" when you are in a position of power.
      - stavros 5y ago
        It's hard not to when the planet is dying.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.
      - 5y ago
undfg 5y ago
Reminds me of https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-affairs-of-spain-calls-to-eat-less-meat-and-president-pedro-sanchez-disavows-it-a-steak-to-the-point-is-unbeatable/97196/ https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-... A few weeks ago the same Sanchez said that we Spaniards should eat way less meat by the year 2050. Obviously that won't apply to him.
jbay808 5y ago
The wealthy class are, presumably, wealthy enough to pay the carbon tax and still enjoy the perks and privileges of private jets though? It's not like they're being exempted from a ban on flying private jets, but rather a tax on them. Their wealth itself was already their ticket to perks and privilege, because it lets them pay the tax.
- tasogare 5y ago
  GP is right. The real point of carbon-tax (and the heavy promotion of global warming) is not to address the underlying issue but to extract wealth from the 99.9% and redirect it to the riches. Any other occasions will be used as such: for example recently the covid was used to kill small businesses and fed the big corporations, which stock rised hugely.
  - jbay808 5y ago
    How do you know this?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - black6 5y ago
      By knowing history and being observant.
- pas 5y ago
  Wealth has a tendency to manage regulations to keep said wealth. Hence tax exemptions, subsidies, etc.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
Its been the same with lockdown. Enforce totalitarian restrictions and tracking on the plebes, whilst the rich and connected routinely ignore or are excluded from the rules. Its possible that Lockdown is a ploy to distract from the trillions of dollars of money printing that has gone on during the pandemic, to suppress the inflation generated, as well as to normalise location and biological data collection and arbitrary interference in personal liberty and private businesses. It seems unlikely that the motivation is really the health of the populace, when deaths and ill health from air pollution and obesity, and from the interrupted medical treatments during Lockdown itself, are routinely ignored. You can follow the same logical pattern for all the other major issues of our time. Are the massive migration inflows of violent military-age males into Europe from MENA really about humanitarian aid, or about injecting cheap labour into the continent and providing justification for giant intelligence agencies, tracking and banning of encryption? The same for critical race theory - is the goal the betterment of humankind, or to set the working class against eachother and to distract from insane wealth capture of the 1%?
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I don't understand people who think that, at hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders were secretly in meetings with robes nodding excitedly over the opportunity to oppress the masses. Or that an unknown, highly contagious respiratory disease causing hospitals to overflow with no vaccine available didn't warrant some kind of mandates against public interactions. It boggles my mind what kind of conspiratorial, Truman-Show-like mentality people must have to find bad faith so common in life. It is the party of those in America who were against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, or any kind of precautions who are also against any kind of regulations or limits on the causes of obesity or climate change or pollution. So your comment about "why do 'they' care about the virus but not pollution" is moot.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway3neu94 5y ago
    The governor of California was photographed holding a fundraising dinner during a phase of lockdown he put in effect. It'd be hard to come up with a more obvious scenario.
yongjik 5y ago
I hate this kind of rhetoric. Frankly that sounds like: "A proposed solution A to problem X has another problem Y, which proves that it was never about X, and consequently I will refuse to acknowledge problem X - if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault for not being able to create a perfect solution that gets my approval."
- pnt12 5y ago
  Well, although taxes are usually effective, they affect more the low and middle classes than the rich, as they can opt to pay and enjoy life as usual. Exemption to activities that are mostly enjoyed by the rich is quite absurd. People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    You raise a good point, but I think one can criticize the proposed law without painting the whole endeavor as some kind of conspiracy. Because, when you think about it, climate change will also affect the poor way more than the rich - so some unscrupulous riches do have a vested interest in keeping people cynical, because it's not they who will suffer the consequences - they can retire in some nice mansion in the Arctic.

duxup 5y ago

"more about control" Control what though? It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair). But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
> It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt. Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
- duxup 5y ago
  Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.
AndrewBissell 5y ago
It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.
- duxup 5y ago
  I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics. I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.
trhway 5y ago
"some are more equal" (in this case - "CO2 emitted by some is less damaging"). Classic control.
whatever1 5y ago
The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them that energy is bad for the environment and that they have to pay tax or buy expensive energy (renewables)
- stavros 5y ago
  We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".
  - whatever1 5y ago
    It's easy to point your finger and say that "we are in this together" when you are in a position of power.
    - stavros 5y ago
      It's hard not to when the planet is dying.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.
    - 5y ago

undfg 5y ago

Reminds me of https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-affairs-of-spain-calls-to-eat-less-meat-and-president-pedro-sanchez-disavows-it-a-steak-to-the-point-is-unbeatable/97196/ https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-... A few weeks ago the same Sanchez said that we Spaniards should eat way less meat by the year 2050. Obviously that won't apply to him.

jbay808 5y ago

The wealthy class are, presumably, wealthy enough to pay the carbon tax and still enjoy the perks and privileges of private jets though? It's not like they're being exempted from a ban on flying private jets, but rather a tax on them. Their wealth itself was already their ticket to perks and privilege, because it lets them pay the tax.

tasogare 5y ago
GP is right. The real point of carbon-tax (and the heavy promotion of global warming) is not to address the underlying issue but to extract wealth from the 99.9% and redirect it to the riches. Any other occasions will be used as such: for example recently the covid was used to kill small businesses and fed the big corporations, which stock rised hugely.
- jbay808 5y ago
  How do you know this?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - black6 5y ago
    By knowing history and being observant.
pas 5y ago
Wealth has a tendency to manage regulations to keep said wealth. Hence tax exemptions, subsidies, etc.

ArkanExplorer 5y ago

Its been the same with lockdown. Enforce totalitarian restrictions and tracking on the plebes, whilst the rich and connected routinely ignore or are excluded from the rules. Its possible that Lockdown is a ploy to distract from the trillions of dollars of money printing that has gone on during the pandemic, to suppress the inflation generated, as well as to normalise location and biological data collection and arbitrary interference in personal liberty and private businesses. It seems unlikely that the motivation is really the health of the populace, when deaths and ill health from air pollution and obesity, and from the interrupted medical treatments during Lockdown itself, are routinely ignored. You can follow the same logical pattern for all the other major issues of our time. Are the massive migration inflows of violent military-age males into Europe from MENA really about humanitarian aid, or about injecting cheap labour into the continent and providing justification for giant intelligence agencies, tracking and banning of encryption? The same for critical race theory - is the goal the betterment of humankind, or to set the working class against eachother and to distract from insane wealth capture of the 1%?

unethical_ban 5y ago
I don't understand people who think that, at hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders were secretly in meetings with robes nodding excitedly over the opportunity to oppress the masses. Or that an unknown, highly contagious respiratory disease causing hospitals to overflow with no vaccine available didn't warrant some kind of mandates against public interactions. It boggles my mind what kind of conspiratorial, Truman-Show-like mentality people must have to find bad faith so common in life. It is the party of those in America who were against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, or any kind of precautions who are also against any kind of regulations or limits on the causes of obesity or climate change or pollution. So your comment about "why do 'they' care about the virus but not pollution" is moot.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway3neu94 5y ago
  The governor of California was photographed holding a fundraising dinner during a phase of lockdown he put in effect. It'd be hard to come up with a more obvious scenario.

yongjik 5y ago

I hate this kind of rhetoric. Frankly that sounds like: "A proposed solution A to problem X has another problem Y, which proves that it was never about X, and consequently I will refuse to acknowledge problem X - if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault for not being able to create a perfect solution that gets my approval."

pnt12 5y ago
Well, although taxes are usually effective, they affect more the low and middle classes than the rich, as they can opt to pay and enjoy life as usual. Exemption to activities that are mostly enjoyed by the rich is quite absurd. People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.
- yongjik 5y ago
  You raise a good point, but I think one can criticize the proposed law without painting the whole endeavor as some kind of conspiracy. Because, when you think about it, climate change will also affect the poor way more than the rich - so some unscrupulous riches do have a vested interest in keeping people cynical, because it's not they who will suffer the consequences - they can retire in some nice mansion in the Arctic.