3 ms·

Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. As for why it's harmful - it's hijacking th

Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. As for why it's harmful - it's hijacking the conversation. Like somebody else said below, we're fighting over 0.1 percent pollution, while ignoring hugely more advantageous moves. Want examples? Let's talk about taking all combustion cars, old or new, out of the cities. Bam, 10-40% reduction in damage to health. Let's encourage and build infrastructure for bikes and other small e-vehicles. Ocean commercial traffic. Waste burning in unsafe incinerators. Construction-related pollution. Each of those is a double digit share of either health impact or global pollution. But no, let's stop the rich from playing with toys instead.

Ensorceled 5y ago
> Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. How/When did wanting equality of outcome become "pettiness"? Also, how did this get projected and extrapolated to I'm not only petty but now I'm also against effective action like fighting urban sprawl (which is the real reason we need cars in first place). Also, my fundamental issue is that the rich will dodge all that other stuff you want as well; the way they are already getting the bulk of green incentives and abusing carbon offsets (see, for example [1] and [2]) This is going to be a long and difficult journey with many, many steps. And at each step of the way, people who claim to be allies will be saying "don't be petty" and "this is but a distraction, the real solution is over here" [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-c...
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Equality of outcome is not petty, it's evil. It's ok, I know what you mean :) you're talking about non-corruption, equality in the face of the law/rules and so on. I pretty much agree with it. I also mean what I said about hijacking the conversation - I happen to care very deeply about health-related pollution (less so about carbon), and I really really don't want the discourse led astray. I think carbon offsets are a fundamentally good idea that probably works. I see this kind of news you linked as proof that it does - in a working system I'd expect occasional abuse. I'd expect to see no abuse only if the system was so inefficient as to not be worse gaming. Is it efficient overall? For this you'd need statistical analysis and lots of data. But I like a framework where everybody can decide how much emiting carbon is worth to them - this way you can easily reach all the low hanging fruits, while still keeping those industries with high value per emission. For example I'd never want a blanket ban or quota to interfere with medical equipament manufacturers or high tech. Having the occasional rich guy buy a ferrari is a very small price. Plus, performance e-cars are already much faster.

Ensorceled 5y ago

> Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. How/When did wanting equality of outcome become "pettiness"? Also, how did this get projected and extrapolated to I'm not only petty but now I'm also against effective action like fighting urban sprawl (which is the real reason we need cars in first place). Also, my fundamental issue is that the rich will dodge all that other stuff you want as well; the way they are already getting the bulk of green incentives and abusing carbon offsets (see, for example [1] and [2]) This is going to be a long and difficult journey with many, many steps. And at each step of the way, people who claim to be allies will be saying "don't be petty" and "this is but a distraction, the real solution is over here" [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-c...

radu_floricica 5y ago
Equality of outcome is not petty, it's evil. It's ok, I know what you mean :) you're talking about non-corruption, equality in the face of the law/rules and so on. I pretty much agree with it. I also mean what I said about hijacking the conversation - I happen to care very deeply about health-related pollution (less so about carbon), and I really really don't want the discourse led astray. I think carbon offsets are a fundamentally good idea that probably works. I see this kind of news you linked as proof that it does - in a working system I'd expect occasional abuse. I'd expect to see no abuse only if the system was so inefficient as to not be worse gaming. Is it efficient overall? For this you'd need statistical analysis and lots of data. But I like a framework where everybody can decide how much emiting carbon is worth to them - this way you can easily reach all the low hanging fruits, while still keeping those industries with high value per emission. For example I'd never want a blanket ban or quota to interfere with medical equipament manufacturers or high tech. Having the occasional rich guy buy a ferrari is a very small price. Plus, performance e-cars are already much faster.