4 ms·

> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. This is clearly false. It may feel like a personal attack on your freedom but: 1. It's not personal, this

> It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. This is clearly false. It may feel like a personal attack on your freedom but: 1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community. 2. It's not an attack. The goal is not to cause you harm, again it's to prevent harm. 3. I'm not even sure what "freedom" means in this context. Do you feel that your freedom has been infringed upon when you have to stop at a cross walk for a pedestrian? Does not taking a shit in a public pool infringe upon this "freedom"? Freedom, for social organism, cannot mean complete and unrestricted action. The only people who have this view are actual toddlers, and part of them growing up to be elementary school kids is to learn about their role in society and the limits of their own rights in the face of others.

14 4y ago
Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. So the rich will continue to pollute without worry and the poor will suffer. We need a system that everyone follows the same. But that will never happen.
- lkbm 4y ago
  > Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. Is there only one poor person? Harming a class of people is not a personal attack.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. Revenue-neutral carbon tax is pretty much equivalent to giving everyone carbon credits and allowing trading them (just with less overhead). If some rich people pay more tax to pollute more, then more money would be distributed back to everybody.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  >Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most The poor always suffer most. What do you use your money for, if not to avoid suffering? Immediate, short term, and long term, that's probably how you spend most of your money, plus spending to avoid your children and family suffering. Now that we've gotten that out of the way: since the environmental improvements of the mid-20th century, urban environments have been the clear winners for living affordably, to say nothing of the accessibility of public services. Poor people may not be able to live in the most expensive zip code of NYC, LA, SF, etc., but then they were hardly going to be living on 100-acre estates when they're living in rural or suburban settings. Car-dominated infrastructure poses enormous personal costs for every single person and miserable additional costs to ferry around non-driver children. So, enough of your government-subsidized 'freedom'. I want the freedom to safely cross the street to church without a police officers (and half the other cars) accelerating into me in the crosswalk. I want the freedom to bike to work safely. I want the freedom for my children to bike to parks, schools, and libraries, like I could growing up. I want the federal and state governments to stop dumping money on my town to build roads as wide as runways to facilitate firetrucks doing 3 point turns and police flying through neighborhoods like action-movie jackasses.
macinjosh 4y ago
> 1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community. This is the most tone deaf statement. If green policies make it harder for me to provide for my family, live our life as we see fit, or force me to do things I don't want to it is _very_ personal, like incredibly personal. There is no reason for you or anyone else to have any power over my life as a voter or a king, period.
- suture 4y ago
  I think your understanding of what a society means and entails is badly out of whack with reality. Living in a society entails curbs on “freedoms”. People in every society are subjected to the norms, ideals, and views of that society. These things change over time. Sometimes change is forced by external events and sometimes changes occur from within. Lots of people have power over you and power over your life today, right now. You are apparently comfortable with the ways and means of that control over your life and don’t want it to change but please don’t think that no one should have power over you.
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
  "force me to do things I don't want to" Yes, it's terrible. Were it not for that accursed law thar robs us of our liberty, I would murder you on the spot for such an asinine comment. Understand now partially what a society is about?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- triceratops 4y ago
  > There is no reason for you or anyone else to have any power over my life as a voter Unless you have your own private air that never touches anyone else's air, we all have a right to control your actions that change our collective air. If you don't agree, go find your own planet and live there.
- mola 4y ago
rmah 4y ago
I'll start by saying that I believe that we need societal changes to help mitigate climate change. BUT, 1) it is personal, 2) it is an attack and 3) it is a limitation on personal freedoms. If we wish to make actual changes to save the planet rather than just preach, we need to recognize these truths. Telling people that their feelings are wrong just makes them dig in their heels all the more. IMO, a better approach is to recognize these sort of objections and think creatively about how to deal with them or mitigate the impact. Remember, the objective isn't to win arguments, it's to heal the Earth.

14 4y ago

Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. So the rich will continue to pollute without worry and the poor will suffer. We need a system that everyone follows the same. But that will never happen.

lkbm 4y ago
> Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most one could argue it is a personal attack. Is there only one poor person? Harming a class of people is not a personal attack.
zajio1am 4y ago
> If the law was that each individual gets X amount of carbon credits then you are stuck walking it would actually mean something. Instead it will be you get X amount of carbon credit then you buy more. Revenue-neutral carbon tax is pretty much equivalent to giving everyone carbon credits and allowing trading them (just with less overhead). If some rich people pay more tax to pollute more, then more money would be distributed back to everybody.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>Well since it will be the poor who suffer the most The poor always suffer most. What do you use your money for, if not to avoid suffering? Immediate, short term, and long term, that's probably how you spend most of your money, plus spending to avoid your children and family suffering. Now that we've gotten that out of the way: since the environmental improvements of the mid-20th century, urban environments have been the clear winners for living affordably, to say nothing of the accessibility of public services. Poor people may not be able to live in the most expensive zip code of NYC, LA, SF, etc., but then they were hardly going to be living on 100-acre estates when they're living in rural or suburban settings. Car-dominated infrastructure poses enormous personal costs for every single person and miserable additional costs to ferry around non-driver children. So, enough of your government-subsidized 'freedom'. I want the freedom to safely cross the street to church without a police officers (and half the other cars) accelerating into me in the crosswalk. I want the freedom to bike to work safely. I want the freedom for my children to bike to parks, schools, and libraries, like I could growing up. I want the federal and state governments to stop dumping money on my town to build roads as wide as runways to facilitate firetrucks doing 3 point turns and police flying through neighborhoods like action-movie jackasses.

macinjosh 4y ago

> 1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community. This is the most tone deaf statement. If green policies make it harder for me to provide for my family, live our life as we see fit, or force me to do things I don't want to it is _very_ personal, like incredibly personal. There is no reason for you or anyone else to have any power over my life as a voter or a king, period.

suture 4y ago
I think your understanding of what a society means and entails is badly out of whack with reality. Living in a society entails curbs on “freedoms”. People in every society are subjected to the norms, ideals, and views of that society. These things change over time. Sometimes change is forced by external events and sometimes changes occur from within. Lots of people have power over you and power over your life today, right now. You are apparently comfortable with the ways and means of that control over your life and don’t want it to change but please don’t think that no one should have power over you.
LBJsPNS 4y ago
"force me to do things I don't want to" Yes, it's terrible. Were it not for that accursed law thar robs us of our liberty, I would murder you on the spot for such an asinine comment. Understand now partially what a society is about?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
triceratops 4y ago
> There is no reason for you or anyone else to have any power over my life as a voter Unless you have your own private air that never touches anyone else's air, we all have a right to control your actions that change our collective air. If you don't agree, go find your own planet and live there.
mola 4y ago

rmah 4y ago

I'll start by saying that I believe that we need societal changes to help mitigate climate change. BUT, 1) it is personal, 2) it is an attack and 3) it is a limitation on personal freedoms. If we wish to make actual changes to save the planet rather than just preach, we need to recognize these truths. Telling people that their feelings are wrong just makes them dig in their heels all the more. IMO, a better approach is to recognize these sort of objections and think creatively about how to deal with them or mitigate the impact. Remember, the objective isn't to win arguments, it's to heal the Earth.