Re:Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted
by john_moscow on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @05:44PM
(#20218775)
I am arguing that we need a framework where an individual's actions reducing the carbon footprint will benefit that individual instead of reducing their life quality. Carefully designed taxes that would make non-carbon alternatives more competitive are realistic. Asking/forcing people to scale down their lifestyle without offering viable alternatives isn't.
Re:Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted
by graeme on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @05:49PM
(#20218806)
Fair enough. I tend to agree then. I think taxes, with tax reductions in other areas to offset the pain, are a better solution than asking for individual effort.
You hadn't mentioned this in your comment though, so I thought you were arguing something else.
We don't need a perfect global framework. We just need to shift incentives to some extent. The market is already coming up with some non-carbon alternatives. Adding a carbon tax will shift incentives further and increase tech development.
To mitigate the effects, business need an energy source. Either it's:
* a replacement to carbon, or
* still carbon
If it's still carbon, you can't reverse the causes, and mitigation gets harder and harder as you worsen the problem.
You're effectively arguing that:
1. There's no use trying now, it's basically impossible, but
2. Despite not trying now, we will solve the impossible problem at some future point.
You're perhaps arguing that the problems of global warming will help us. This seems rather like Bastiat's parable of the broken window.
Negative changes will only hurt us, and individual solutions can't fix a global atmosphere.