[beebeepka]

If it's going to be anything like the carbon offsets, I see zero reason to elaborate since it will inevitably end up looking like arguing with religious people.

I am all for taxing pollution but focusing on carbon alone makes me extremely dubious of the actual intent behind such proposals.

These things appear to be weapons disguised as legitimate efforts to improve things.

[ddejohn]

So instead of taking the opportunity to educate somebody on a topic you're implying you know a lot about, you've decided it's not worth the bother because I'm probably religious about -- checks notes -- carbon taxes... and there's going to be no reasoning with me?

Why bother commenting on the internet at all?

[beebeepka]

So, instead of arguing your own thoughts on the matter, you choose to downvote when I share my own. Or, you could just do the usual citations spam to silence any dissenting opinions.

Why bother indeed.

[ddejohn]

I don't have 500 rep. I'm unable to downvote. I tried to engage in discourse by asking you to elaborate on your position -- the onus wasn't on me to explain anything. Good luck in life.

[beebeepka]

I did explain but apparently my reasoning wasn't good enough. It's hard to take someone seriously when they are in favour of scams like carbon tax, considering the premise of carbon offsets. It's akin to paying someone to take the punishment for a crime you did.

Take care.