38 ms·
You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not! I'll give you a tiny example: > Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its
by ars 2y ago
You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not!
I'll give you a tiny example:
> Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards?
Gasoline is the entire reason we have an economy, do anything to make it more expensive and you'll unleash an earthquake of inflation and lower productivity. That's like the last thing you want to tax!
Note: it's irrelevant if you agree with the argument, (or even if I agree with it) - the issue is that the argument exists.
- freeone3000 2y agoYes, I believe it is irrefutable that burning fossil fuels is continuing to degrade the environment. We can look at it. Silver did not used to tarnish! (It reacts with atmospheric sulfur released from burning coal.) Look at the AQI in any city — it’s wrecked. Compare highway versus 500 meters away. Burning gasoline and coal are toxic and disruptive to health. But we can’t tax them because then… people would use them less. Yes, that is the point.
- ars 2y agoSo basically you just completely skipped what I said and replied to something I didn't say? The topic at hand is not the existence of global warming, the topic at hand is what to do about it. > Yes, that is the point. Try this exercise: Write an argument against taxing it. A good argument. If you can't do it, then you are unable to understand the topic and I don't know how to reply to you.