3 ms·

I don't think I've ever seen a better example of consumer choice/free market ideology run amok. So instead of just banning something that's bad we have people f

I don't think I've ever seen a better example of consumer choice/free market ideology run amok. So instead of just banning something that's bad we have people fly around needlessly and then tax them so we can take their money and build a carbon capture plant next to their private airport, and we all do this so we're not mean to them? > instead of focusing on how much that trip would create. you need to focus on that anyway if you put a tax on their behavior

djjdhdnfnf 4y ago
They would leave and take their tax revenue with them.
- arbitrary_name 4y ago
  Would they really? Because they can't fly? A very questionable assertion, that is trotted out any time we talk about making the rich pay for their excesses. Being able to fly domestically is not the sole reason wealthy people live in France
- CommanderData 4y ago
  Pay to play. If they want a piece of the economy they pay to get it.
zamadatix 4y ago
I mean I guess carbon capture could be an option but it's probably bottom of the list in terms of effective things to use the subsidies for. Primarily I'd imagine it going to cost offsetting the transition to greener alternatives for other things people want to stop using as I gave examples of above. We would do it because it's better for everyone involved, even at the individual level. Nobody here has said we'd do it because it's mean to ban things. > you need to focus on that anyway if you put a tax on their behavior The tax would focus on the emissions not the behavior. If you mean "someone needs to calculate the emissions caused by the behavior" well sure but that's hardly making the behavior a focus let alone the focus.
aperson_hello 4y ago
But taxing means there's an opportunity for revenue to build more green infrastructure. Yes, that tax needs revisited in the future to make sure it's still accomplishing it's goal, but Europe is currently in the midst of an energy crisis due to lack of investment in local green power infrastructure (and instead relying on Russian gas for electricity). What solves this problem? Investment! What does investment require? Money! What do taxes generate? Money!

djjdhdnfnf 4y ago

They would leave and take their tax revenue with them.

arbitrary_name 4y ago
Would they really? Because they can't fly? A very questionable assertion, that is trotted out any time we talk about making the rich pay for their excesses. Being able to fly domestically is not the sole reason wealthy people live in France
CommanderData 4y ago
Pay to play. If they want a piece of the economy they pay to get it.

zamadatix 4y ago

I mean I guess carbon capture could be an option but it's probably bottom of the list in terms of effective things to use the subsidies for. Primarily I'd imagine it going to cost offsetting the transition to greener alternatives for other things people want to stop using as I gave examples of above. We would do it because it's better for everyone involved, even at the individual level. Nobody here has said we'd do it because it's mean to ban things. > you need to focus on that anyway if you put a tax on their behavior The tax would focus on the emissions not the behavior. If you mean "someone needs to calculate the emissions caused by the behavior" well sure but that's hardly making the behavior a focus let alone the focus.

aperson_hello 4y ago

But taxing means there's an opportunity for revenue to build more green infrastructure. Yes, that tax needs revisited in the future to make sure it's still accomplishing it's goal, but Europe is currently in the midst of an energy crisis due to lack of investment in local green power infrastructure (and instead relying on Russian gas for electricity). What solves this problem? Investment! What does investment require? Money! What do taxes generate? Money!