3 ms·
Here's another version of the analogy: you say that eating Big Macs will cause other people to die and cities to sink into the ocean, and that I should limit my
by laut 18y ago
Here's another version of the analogy: you say that eating Big Macs will cause other people to die and cities to sink into the ocean, and that I should limit my intake of Big Macs because of this. It's OK if I continue to eat some Big Macs, though as long as I pay you a tax or buy Big Mac credits from your company and I let you regulate what I eat. If I don't pay the tax you have imposed on Big Macs, I will be thrown into jail. If I then resist going to jail, you will have the police kill me.
In light of those claims, I find it strange that you (the fictional Ron-Al McGore) are not really changing your eating habit of at least 4 Big Macs at every meal.
- emmett 18y agoYour analogy is close, but flawed. Instead, I suggest the following as an analogy for your argument: Al Gore is arguing for an across the board tax increase. He thinks that everyone should pay more taxes. On the other hand, he's not donating his money to the government. If Al Gore really thought it was a good idea to raise taxes, wouldn't he pay them whether the government mandates it or not? That illustrates more clearly the fact that action on global warming is collective, the same way that taxes are. In fact, you could probably implement action on global warming as a tax increase, by requiring people to purchase carbon credits. I hope you see why it's not required for you to donate extra money to the government in order to argue for a tax increase. Given that, I hope you see why it's not required for you to preemptively stop consuming carbon to argue for government action on global warming.
- Prrometheus 18y agoExcept that green activists often encourage individual action.