3 ms·
Your text is overly emotional instead of being what I asked for. Its about numbers. The positive things have a value X, the negatives (that so long no one has t
by go_elmo 4y ago
Your text is overly emotional instead of being what I asked for. Its about numbers. The positive things have a value X, the negatives (that so long no one has to pay för) also, lets call it Y.
If X > Y so be it, but limit the Profit at |X-Y|. Its not anyones decision what X and Y are, but facts that can be empiricaly derived. I dont care how many uses substance Z has, I only care about Y not being dispersed without liability, which happens today. If Y is too high, the Market shall regulate itself and will provide alternatives.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ThomPete 4y agoI already explained why the positive outweigh the negative. But there is a simple experiment you can do. List all the things you can't live without. List if they are possible without CO2 For those that aren't list if it's possible with current technologies, and current economics and current knowledge to create alternatives that are matching. You will quickly realize you can't do that unless you are contempt with living like natives in some far remote jungle or with inferior or much more expensive solutions ( which then create its own set of externalities)