3 ms·

I feel we'll soon enough have a Brexit/Trump moment with these regressive taxes labeled as "environmental" taxes.

AdrianB1 5y ago
They are trying to reduce carbon emissions, not to be progressive or regressive. It looks like a measure for improving climate, not income redistribution.
bserge 5y ago
Yeah, if they manage it like Covid, people will riot. Everyone likes to talk about reducing their carbon footprint and shit, but push come to shove, no one wants to give up their lifestyle. Especially not the middle and upper classes. In the end, a bunch of people will just have to die, it's the only real solution.
livueta 5y ago
Not sure why this would be downed; it's a real issue, e.g. https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-could-reshape-british-politics/21804957 https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-cou... In a way, it really is a bit of a "no shit" observation: actually effective climate action is incompatible with democracy unless quality of life is broadly maintained or improved. And people shouldn't point at warm-and-fuzzy nonsense like polls claiming to show 80+% support for "saving the climate" and similarly vague statements. Imma just leave this here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E... In fucking Washington. By those margins. Support for climate action disintegrates as soon as people see the personal downside, so we need to figure out how to develop and present lifestyle-positive climate interventions (like the revenue-neutrality of this Austrian thing!) if we want any serious motion in the West. I'm starting to look at the more self-flagellatory proposals as likely false flags from those opposed to serious change: as long as the burden of decarbonization falls on the little guy and his evil evil burgers, they can rest assured knowing that no serious action will ever pass anywhere important.

They are trying to reduce carbon emissions, not to be progressive or regressive. It looks like a measure for improving climate, not income redistribution.

bserge 5y ago

Yeah, if they manage it like Covid, people will riot. Everyone likes to talk about reducing their carbon footprint and shit, but push come to shove, no one wants to give up their lifestyle. Especially not the middle and upper classes. In the end, a bunch of people will just have to die, it's the only real solution.

livueta 5y ago

Not sure why this would be downed; it's a real issue, e.g. https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-could-reshape-british-politics/21804957 https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-cou... In a way, it really is a bit of a "no shit" observation: actually effective climate action is incompatible with democracy unless quality of life is broadly maintained or improved. And people shouldn't point at warm-and-fuzzy nonsense like polls claiming to show 80+% support for "saving the climate" and similarly vague statements. Imma just leave this here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E... In fucking Washington. By those margins. Support for climate action disintegrates as soon as people see the personal downside, so we need to figure out how to develop and present lifestyle-positive climate interventions (like the revenue-neutrality of this Austrian thing!) if we want any serious motion in the West. I'm starting to look at the more self-flagellatory proposals as likely false flags from those opposed to serious change: as long as the burden of decarbonization falls on the little guy and his evil evil burgers, they can rest assured knowing that no serious action will ever pass anywhere important.