I don't think complaining about people buying $5 cups of coffee at Starbucks is helpful for making a convincing argument. When you make statements like that, you give people the impression that your true motive is to attack capitalism and that raising environmental concerns are simply an underhanded tactic to do so. I understand your point about driving, but the brand of coffee and the cost is irrelevant and complaining about it is counterproductive.

There's no reason we can't address climate change and have $5 cups of coffee at Starbucks (although I prefer $2 cups of coffee at Dunkin Donuts).

I think it's the driving is the bigger problem (Starbucks exists in many walkable countries too).

But yeah, you're right, highlighting the Starbucks is a bad plan here.

Highlighting all the ways in which being good for the environment is good for business is definitely a plus.

For the Conservative crowd, we need to characterize renewable energy as energy independence.

And carbon taxes as reducing regulation.

Carbon taxes are also cutting subsidies.

Given the external costs, big users are being subsidised by everyone else.

Also, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery.

Good luck with that.

How are you going to spin that?

It's a strategic regulation that replaces multiple tactical regulations. Therefore, carbon tax leads to fewer regulations.

Which regulations does it replace?

Cap and trade, in California, at least. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2017/03/02/californ...

Depending on how far it's taken, the carbon tax could replace every other regulation of carbon-based green house gas emissions.

However, our contemporary Republican part uses "anti-regulations" as code for "anti-government, anti-law enforcement", so I doubt carbon tax will get any play.