|
|
|
|
|
|
by gruez
1465 days ago
|
|
|
>If Im the 69% that wants to tax fossil fuels, and the ballet says taxes on "greenhouse gas" - Im not going to care or be very happy with the measure, because I agreed I want to tax "fossil fuels" Again, I'm skeptical whether this distinction is responsible for a 26 percentage point drop in support. Fossil fuels make up the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions in washington state. Taxing greenhouse gasses is largely synonymous with taxing greenhouse gasses. Outside of a very small group whose livelihood involves non-fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions (cow farmers?), I'm having a hard time imagining why you'd be against a greenhouse gas tax but would support a fossil fuel tax. |
|
|
Where did I say that?
I was pointing out that choice of words matter. This isnt even about the tax, the original point was about if what people say in polls is real - you argued no and presented very shaky evidence - I was pointing out the flaw in it so you could refine your position or rethink it - what you choose is up to you - but thinking all 69% of the people who would want to tax “fossil fuels” and are also able to make that connection to “greenhouse gases” or not just really dislike fossils fuels for other reasons, I think may be too generous. Then add the people who dont think it goes far enough, plus the midterms and you have a not great argument.
Either way, I havent stated any actual opinion on the tax matter nor have I thought about in the discussion in any way other than to point out what was missing from your example about polling opinion - the words matter, and also voter turn out