3 ms·

Because "greens" are anti-progress, anti-humanity, and pro-hairshirting, so anything that allows humanity to thrive without suffering doesn't count. The restric

Because "greens" are anti-progress, anti-humanity, and pro-hairshirting, so anything that allows humanity to thrive without suffering doesn't count. The restrictions, suffering, and decrease in prosperity are the point. "Environmentalists make good movie villains because they want to make your real life worse" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/03/environmentalists-make-good-movie-villains-because-they-want-make-your-real-life-worse/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/03/environme... "Environmentalists want to increase the costs of everyday goods and services by taxing carbon. They want you to fly less and to pay more, via offsets, when you do fly. They want you to stop eating meat. They want you to stop having kids. They want to deprive you of disabled-friendly plastic straws — and they’re coming for your delightful balloons next. They want to turn your corpse into food for plants because even the sweet release of death cannot save you from the environmentalist menace."

arcticbull 4y ago
> Environmentalists want to increase the costs of everyday goods and services by taxing carbon. They want you to pay for the impacts of carbon emissions at the point of sale instead of socializing them later. That seems fair to me. > They want to turn your corpse into food for plants because even the sweet release of death cannot save you from the environmentalist menace. In this particular case it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else want lol. We will all be plant food. I guess unless you shoot yourself into space, but even that's not a hard guarantee.
- ltbarcly3 4y ago
  > They want you to pay for the impacts of carbon emissions This can't be quantified currently. Current methods of 'paying' for carbon emissions have ended up being corrupt wealth transfers. That people are still for them is pretty good evidence they aren't really concerned about the consequences of carbon emissions.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > Current methods of 'paying' for carbon emissions have ended up being corrupt wealth transfers. Not really, Canada just refunds people whatever they collect in carbon taxes at the end of the year, with the goal being to make the decision clearer at the point of sale. [1] > That people are still for them is pretty good evidence they aren't really concerned about the consequences of carbon emissions. Anyone who thinks you should emit less carbon understands that making carbon more expensive does just that. We don't need to let perfect be the enemy of good and have an absolutely unimpeachable answer as to exactly how much damage a metric ton of CO2 does to know that making it more expensive will help. [edit] IMO we should just let gas get to $10+/gal. [1] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financing-for-climate-friendly/revenue-neutral-carbon-tax https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financ...
    - ltbarcly3 4y ago
      > Canada just refunds people whatever they collect in carbon taxes at the end of the year This is a very clever system which I have to admit sounds like a great idea, I was talking about things like carbon credit markets. > Anyone who thinks you should emit less carbon understands that making carbon more expensive This is not the case, it's likely (and to the point of OP) that making carbon more expensive in location A just acts as an indirect subsidy of carbon emissions in location C. In other words, if you make 1 KG of carbon more in location A, that will often make it economical to perform the same work in location C (still releasing at least 1KG of carbon) and then ship the result back to A releasing another KG of carbon. Worse, the more of something that is used in a certain place the cheaper that thing can become. A carbon tax in location A might make it economical to build a (or a larger) pipeline to move natural gas to location C, and then you get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox where carbon emissions increase much more in location C than they were reduced in location A.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    Carbon markets currently make no sense. They are mostly there to allow politicians to say they are fighting climate change while not having to do anything possibly unpopular. The reason carbon markets make no sense? They don't have a supply curve. This is why politicians have to set the price artificially. The supply should be provided by carbon sequestration projects. You emit 1 ton of carbon and pay for 1 ton of carbon to be sequestered from the atmosphere. The problem of course is that carbon sequestration is incredibly expensive so the price of emitting would be unaffordable. The incentives to cheat would be massive, it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. In theory this would spur a technological arms race to develop the most cost effective and large scale way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, but the world economy would likely collapse before that panned out. It's kind of a shame we didn't YOLO this however, because once the techs were finally developed then we could just throw money at reversing climate change and that's something people would be so happy to do. People love easy solutions that don't demand a lot of time and attention. Fossil fuels are only cheap because we are blithely ignoring the externalities, unlike every green alternative.

arcticbull 4y ago

> Environmentalists want to increase the costs of everyday goods and services by taxing carbon. They want you to pay for the impacts of carbon emissions at the point of sale instead of socializing them later. That seems fair to me. > They want to turn your corpse into food for plants because even the sweet release of death cannot save you from the environmentalist menace. In this particular case it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else want lol. We will all be plant food. I guess unless you shoot yourself into space, but even that's not a hard guarantee.

ltbarcly3 4y ago
> They want you to pay for the impacts of carbon emissions This can't be quantified currently. Current methods of 'paying' for carbon emissions have ended up being corrupt wealth transfers. That people are still for them is pretty good evidence they aren't really concerned about the consequences of carbon emissions.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > Current methods of 'paying' for carbon emissions have ended up being corrupt wealth transfers. Not really, Canada just refunds people whatever they collect in carbon taxes at the end of the year, with the goal being to make the decision clearer at the point of sale. [1] > That people are still for them is pretty good evidence they aren't really concerned about the consequences of carbon emissions. Anyone who thinks you should emit less carbon understands that making carbon more expensive does just that. We don't need to let perfect be the enemy of good and have an absolutely unimpeachable answer as to exactly how much damage a metric ton of CO2 does to know that making it more expensive will help. [edit] IMO we should just let gas get to $10+/gal. [1] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financing-for-climate-friendly/revenue-neutral-carbon-tax https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financ...
  - ltbarcly3 4y ago
    > Canada just refunds people whatever they collect in carbon taxes at the end of the year This is a very clever system which I have to admit sounds like a great idea, I was talking about things like carbon credit markets. > Anyone who thinks you should emit less carbon understands that making carbon more expensive This is not the case, it's likely (and to the point of OP) that making carbon more expensive in location A just acts as an indirect subsidy of carbon emissions in location C. In other words, if you make 1 KG of carbon more in location A, that will often make it economical to perform the same work in location C (still releasing at least 1KG of carbon) and then ship the result back to A releasing another KG of carbon. Worse, the more of something that is used in a certain place the cheaper that thing can become. A carbon tax in location A might make it economical to build a (or a larger) pipeline to move natural gas to location C, and then you get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox where carbon emissions increase much more in location C than they were reduced in location A.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Carbon markets currently make no sense. They are mostly there to allow politicians to say they are fighting climate change while not having to do anything possibly unpopular. The reason carbon markets make no sense? They don't have a supply curve. This is why politicians have to set the price artificially. The supply should be provided by carbon sequestration projects. You emit 1 ton of carbon and pay for 1 ton of carbon to be sequestered from the atmosphere. The problem of course is that carbon sequestration is incredibly expensive so the price of emitting would be unaffordable. The incentives to cheat would be massive, it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. In theory this would spur a technological arms race to develop the most cost effective and large scale way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, but the world economy would likely collapse before that panned out. It's kind of a shame we didn't YOLO this however, because once the techs were finally developed then we could just throw money at reversing climate change and that's something people would be so happy to do. People love easy solutions that don't demand a lot of time and attention. Fossil fuels are only cheap because we are blithely ignoring the externalities, unlike every green alternative.