|
|
|
|
|
by esotericn
2521 days ago
|
|
The whole issue here is in thinking about pricing carbon as a "fine". It represents fixing the economic incentives. If a beef burger is 10x more environmentally damaging than a vegetable one, it should cost approximately ten times more. As I've posted below - this is child-level logic. It's time for us to sort our shit out. There really is no option. We need stable homes, nutrition, and a bit of entertainment. We don't need no-holds-barred competition to literally use as much of everything as we possibly can; and we _certainly_ don't need that to be apportioned essentially randomly - the more damaging activities should cost more. If it bothers you to be confronted by that - if your first thoughts are "economic damage" and the fact your life might slightly change - I'm sorry for you. Because you really are fucked, you're coming down with all of us. |
|
I believe climate change is coming but trying to convince someone they should change because they are a Bad Person if they don’t change their ways, or that some unspecified type of fuckedness is looming, is not very successful.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf