4 ms·
As others have pointed out, the solution to this is not a ban but a carbon tax. All negative externalities should be taxed appropriately. If someone still want
by driverdan 4y ago
As others have pointed out, the solution to this is not a ban but a carbon tax. All negative externalities should be taxed appropriately.
If someone still wants to have a private jet they can but must pay the full costs of it instead of offloading the pollution cost on society.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- perilunar 4y agoYes. We as a society should stop taxing income and profits, and start taxing resource use and externalities. Go full Georgist.
- frognumber 4y agoTaxes have the additional upside of leading to fewer stupid consequences. A lot of the EU bans means if you're designing some kind of e.g. medical life-saving device of which there will be a few dozen units produced total, you can't do a whole bunch of things designed to make consumer devices better. The laws are on the surface reasonable, but they fail in corner cases. Corner cases sometimes go to be important. Housing in the US is a big one. Building codes don't allow experimentation. Charge me a grand for using lead, the wrong connector, or whatever, but please don't ban me.
- viktorcode 4y agoThey will, because a typical private plane passenger is already someone who chose to pay extra. The carbon tax will hit economy passengers harder.