[3D25157725]

Right, and I agree to both. This also lowers their standard of living.

My question was probably too vague. Maybe more directly, is raising costs across the board as a matter of policy more effective in our fight against climate change than other interventions? Like subsidizing research into renewable energies, etc. Have we given up on those?

I am far from qualified in judging the effectiveness of alternatives, I just wonder if these taxes are draconian, and if so, have we given up hope on these alternatives.

This was besides the point the parent was making, however, so I am regretting my digression now.

[fasfsadfsa]

Is not consuming energy you don't need really lowering your standard of living? I mean, is being pressured into driving a 30mpg car vs a 20mpg car which serves your needs just as well - does that lower your standard of living?

If we don't reduce fossil fuel use will that negatively affect the ability of the planet to support humanity? If so, isn't that lowering your standard of living?

[3D25157725]

To your first question, yes I think it does. Government coercing my decisions is negative ( individually, not necessarily society/humanity ). In the same way, if government policy mandated televisions to be twice the cost because they deemed it hindered education, that would make me worse off as a consumer of televisions.

To your second question, I suppose I would argue that it lowers my standard living now, but _may_ raise the standard of living for posterity, since obviously climate change time scales are vastly greater than the effect of a tax now. However you could rightly argue that by UK citizens reducing their carbon footprint now, 3rd parties downwind directly benefit now by being less harmed by UK pollution, yes.

[woebegonia]

I don't agree with you but that was a good, honest answer which I can respect.