4 ms·

At this point, any rational person understands the problem. Ok. We get it. So how do we fix it? It seems like everyone is focusing on proving that it is caused

At this point, any rational person understands the problem. Ok. We get it. So how do we fix it? It seems like everyone is focusing on proving that it is caused by humans, but where is the solution?

buckbova 11y ago
With taxes of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
- darkstar999 11y ago
  Ok, so they collect a massive amount of taxes. Then what?
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    Enact the rest of the left's policy goals, of course. Don't ask why. IT'S THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS you denier.
    - darkstar999 11y ago
      Oh come on. I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation here.
  - surprisetalk 11y ago
    This strategy is popular because it uses negative incentives to discourage pollution. Collecting money is just a bonus.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    That's pretty much it. If someone wants to avoid said taxes, they should build a solar power plant. It is certainly better than subsidies (because it lets market, not government, to decide on the best solution), although of course for politicians it's easier to create subsidies than taxes. As for what to do with the collected money, I would suggest lowering other taxes, or just give it to everybody in the same amount.
ehvatum 11y ago
If humans are causing it and it is going to be very bad for humans, humans might do some long term planning and make decisions that are less desirable in the short term in order to obtain a more desirable long term outcome. The best way to short circuit this if you personally profit from behavior with extremely negative long term impacts is to prevent recognition that the bad behavior has those impacts. This turns out to be so easy to achieve in a free society that a solution to any large scale, long term problem is no solution at all unless it also solves the problem of people not wanting to accept the pain of implementing that solution. IE, either the solution to global warming must be very desirable in the short term, or we fight a civil war to stamp out dissent against the solution, or the problem happens.

At this point, any rational person understands the problem. Ok. We get it. So how do we fix it? It seems like everyone is focusing on proving that it is caused by humans, but where is the solution?

buckbova 11y ago

With taxes of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

darkstar999 11y ago
Ok, so they collect a massive amount of taxes. Then what?
- joeclark77 11y ago
  Enact the rest of the left's policy goals, of course. Don't ask why. IT'S THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS you denier.
  - darkstar999 11y ago
    Oh come on. I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation here.
- surprisetalk 11y ago
  This strategy is popular because it uses negative incentives to discourage pollution. Collecting money is just a bonus.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  That's pretty much it. If someone wants to avoid said taxes, they should build a solar power plant. It is certainly better than subsidies (because it lets market, not government, to decide on the best solution), although of course for politicians it's easier to create subsidies than taxes. As for what to do with the collected money, I would suggest lowering other taxes, or just give it to everybody in the same amount.

ehvatum 11y ago

If humans are causing it and it is going to be very bad for humans, humans might do some long term planning and make decisions that are less desirable in the short term in order to obtain a more desirable long term outcome. The best way to short circuit this if you personally profit from behavior with extremely negative long term impacts is to prevent recognition that the bad behavior has those impacts. This turns out to be so easy to achieve in a free society that a solution to any large scale, long term problem is no solution at all unless it also solves the problem of people not wanting to accept the pain of implementing that solution. IE, either the solution to global warming must be very desirable in the short term, or we fight a civil war to stamp out dissent against the solution, or the problem happens.