[anamax]

> It will also force incumbent, stagnant industries to invest in research and development, and disperse wealth more broadly, both of which pay significant future dividends beyond simply a reduction carbon output.

"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere.

[antonovka]

"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere.

You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview.

... these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate.

There are real costs to pollution (pollution is not 'artificial'), but those costs are levied against communities (and world) without any recourse against those who externalize them.

[anamax]

> You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview.

I quoted your whole paragraph. The only context that I left out was what you were responding to, which people can easily see above. If there's some context "missing" that changes what you wrote into something that withstands scrutiny, that's because you never wrote it.

However, feel free to provide that missing context now.

Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.

[antonovka]

Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.

Stupid, as in: In the context of the sentence, the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces, and didn't "concede" anything about the rationality or reality of investing in cleaner energy and processes.

It's clear that any discussion with you devolves into responding to ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric, so I'll stop here.

[anamax]

> the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces

This market isn't free - the price is forced by govt. You remember govt - they're folks who shoot you if you don't do what they want. (They're not the only folks who will do that, but ....)

Without that threat of force establishing a price, there would be a lot less investment.

You may like the price established, but that doesn't change the fact that the price would be different without the threat of force, and there would be a lot less investment.

> ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric

Since when does pointing out how govt mandates work qualify?