Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
I asked you how you would set your tax rates to produce the result of reduced individual emissions and you replied with
That sounds like a plan that allows those who can afford to continue producing excess carbon emissions to keep producing excess emissions and those that produce less will benefit monetarily, which of course might allow them to produce more themselves. How exactly does that achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions?
Keep on trying to convince people that aren't the problem that they need change, chili dick.
That'll fix it.
Yes, me either.
Even though there are some glaring questions about the science of man-made climate change, we should operate from the premise that it's all true and CO2 is bad but we shouldn't do anything to actually force wealthy people to stop producing more of the harmful stuff than the rest of the people as a starting point.
It's really bad but not bad enough for people to change their lavish lifestyles is a great looking argument from any perspective.
Why? You made it sound like we can do nothing about farts. I pointed out that we actually could as suggested by the City of Berkeley.
We should weigh the uncertainty of climate change against the worst possible least palatable solutions to climate change instead of the actual proposals be put forth.
The gas guzzler tax has been super effective at reducing consumption...
Last edited:
Does the danger of CO2 emissions really need a palatable solution or an effective one?
This is your hill? The taxes on fuel consumption will not reduce fuel consumption hill?
Such bad faith I don't know why I bother.
Found the question. I don't think you can flip people because they are dug in or sociopathic sophists, which is why I think you have to find things that work without flipping people.
Why does it need to be palatable? Most people wouldn't be affected by not being able to buy an Audi R8, buy a 46 foot Fountain, or live in a 5,000 square foot house. Forcing the wealthy to reduce carbon emissions by eliminating their ability to be less responsible will only be unpalatable to them.
Huh? You said taxes reduce consumption. I pointed out an example of a tax designed to reduce consumption that doesn't reduce consumption. It has never been altered and doesn't apply to the some of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road.
I've asked you for your specific ideas but have gotten nothing but vagueness in response. I'll try again. What type and level of taxation do you think would reduce carbon emissions? Let's look at vehicles and housing for simplicity.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. The wants of the wealthy, who are the biggest contributors of carbon emissions, outweigh the dangers we're told carbon emissions create. How exactly does that compute to anything that's logical if the goal is to actually reduce carbon emissions?
Are you sure it doesn't reduce consumption?
Ask an some economists what the elasticity of fuel demand is. Ask a climate scientist for an emissions target. Tax the production and importation of fuel accordingly. If the tax ends up being too low, increase it, if it ends up being too high decrease it. This is not hard. Just because the plan is simple doesn't make it vague.
Medic, please feel free to start a political party based on banning sports cars and large houses. I don't think it is a winning platform. But you do you.
Yes.
More taxes on fuel? That is simple. It's also going to have its greatest impact on the poor, the folks who proportionally produce much less carbon emissions than the wealthy. Taxing fuel to the levels that would be necessary to reduce consumption in the wealthy will price the poor and middle class out of being able to afford gasoline. That sounds like a terrible plan.
So carbon emissions aren't dangerous enough to actually force people to change behaviors, willingly or not? I thought the Democrats were the party that wants to reduce carbon emissions. A new party is needed to actually get serious about it?
That's where the redistribution part comes in. Anyone who uses less than average (mean) actually benefits.
Carbon emissions are dangerous enough to insist on politically feasible solutions like the the carbon tax we are discussing.
How do they benefit monetarily? Just by using less fuel? Tax rebates? You've mentioned redistribution several times. What exactly does that entail?
All the carbon taxes collected are rebated out equally. So if you use less than average you get back more from the rebate than you pay in taxes.
Don't put your lack of effort or comprehension on others... If this shit were easy it would already be part of your basic platform.
And we're back to politically feasible is more important than actual reduction. Folks on this board wonder why people like me find the man-made climate discussion very hypocritical. Here's the answer.
