Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by explaininjs 980 days ago
Why not? If it’s truly about the environment then everyone should pay based on their environmental impact. Sure, if carbon/methane/whatever can be shown to have a higher environmental impact when emitted at altitude or whatever, take that into account.

But placing the environment second to specifically target the “luxury” as some sort of way to “get” the rich is only harming your case.
1 comments
geysersam 980 days ago
No. It's about maximizing value per emission. The value of luxury goods is less than basic necessities (it's stuff we can live without by definition) so the rate should compensate for that.

I would accept a flat rate if each person got a fixed amount of emissions assigned to them and each person could decide to sell or keep their "emission right". Then everyone would have enough for basic needs.

In practice the results would be similar.

link
explaininjs 980 days ago
Better to simply charge emissions based on the cost required to scrub them.

Trying to inject value judgements into it turns the whole situation into an absurd government mandated ethics board. The precise task governments have shown themselves to royally screw up time and time again.

link