While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."
I'd like petrol to be 3 or 4 times the cost it is now. That would greatly reduce emissions, but fossil fuels could still be used in situations where there was no alternative (long distance flight, huge earthmoving machines?).
Inevitably, rich jerks would continue to ride their jetskis. So what?
You can't legislate people to have the right attitude. But taxing things does drive bulk behaviour.
I mention this just to share that there is some chance of this improving, even in areas we might not think likely. If it is a long-term mining operation (short-term someday, perhaps) then I can't think of a technical reason that prevents wind and solar being used to generate the on-site electricity.
A recent HN article was about one of the mining dump trucks being powered by battery and using regenerative braking to mean it was able to charge itself. Those giant diggers are already using braking in their cables that power their shovels. Maybe there is something to capture there, as well.
In my work, I had the chance to deal with some riggers and some crane operators (smaller stuff) by just exposure while collecting data. During that exposure, I learned something new. Lifting the stuff up is actually pretty easy. It is putting it down that is difficult. Maybe there is some energy to capture in that process?
But it wouldn't be a detriment, the extra cost would be derived from the expenses associated with offsetting the negative externalities (by cleaning pollution, planting trees, recycling, water purification, whatever).
Basically "only the rich shall eat healthy"
And to be totally honest, I want to tackle this issue through a startup called "standard pantry" which is the idea that one should have access to a standard pantry of goods and recipes (in place of a standard min income) and they should be able to sustain only and healthily feed themselves.
> only the rich shall eat healthy
With
> only the rich shall eat fancy
It's easy to eat healthy if you're not rich. Buy non-processed ingredients and cook them yourself.
That's the problem.
We need to educate on a basic standard pantry that allows healthy to be so easy that it doesn't even cross our minds.
If the only problem is nutrition education then that is not a rich person privilege.
A large majority of the public cannot afford Whole foods but are educated enough to understand that home cooked meals from non-processed ingredients are healthier than their counterparts.
If education is all it took we'd all be rich with six pack abs. (Derek Sivers.)
Habit rules all.
Make unhealthy food illegal? Make marketing unhealthy food illegal?
Hmm...
I learned to cook from my depression era grandmother. Home cooking is healthy, but not always cheap.
My grandmother used to tell me "this meal is $1.37 per serving"
As we made things, I learned to cook in le curset pots from a woman who used to travel the world with Martin yan and Julia child... (we were state department family and had a lot of opportunity)
But my main point remains: the "educate" is pArt-and-parcel to the whole greater idea of a home cooked meal: "family time"
"Fast food is the bane of existence as we have basically brought generations to not value what home cooking means... then we exploit them in the cheap labor force and perpetuate the idea that having a "home cooked meal" means that "the way mom used to cook it" is an actual phrase and it means the disruption of the basis of modern society, the family...
This issue can spiral and spiral, but my point is that rather than basic income, we need basic pantry - the basis of understanding, having access to, and the knowledge to cook a good meal without breaking the home (due to how hard people need to work at jobs for their ability to provide food on the table)
I'm there once a year. I'll pin this.
Amount US taxpayers spend yearly to subsidize meat and dairy : $38 billion
To subsidize fruits and vegetables : $17 million
US retail price of a pound of chicken in 1935 (adjusted for inflation) : $5.07
In 2011 : $1.34
Pounds of chicken eaten annually per American in 1935 : 9
In 2011 : 56
Revenue collected by US fishing industry per pound of fish caught : $0.59
Portion of this figure funded by taxpayers as subsidies : $0.28
Anyway here's another source that shows that meat consumption has dramatically increased since the 1920s, though that wasn't my central point:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/vis...
I want to show that there is a lot more murder today than before because of guns.
I pick one year (a far edge of the bell curve type of year) to compare to today where there was the least amount of murders and compare it to day.
Without showing an average or showing even a distribution bias should be expected. There is very little reason for picking a single year to these types of arguments and it is too often done.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climat...