4 ms·

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

by 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.

by 14 4y ago

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.