They answered it. The person they were responding to was trying to broaden the scope too much. Many laws purposely have narrow scopes in order to handle problems that arise without setting too much precedent.

They did not answer it. "Broaden the scope too much" - why? The question seems completely appropriate if you're actually trying to solve the climate problem. The response didn't address this, it targets crypto specifically, which makes it seem like the motivations are not climate but something else.

The question was about how to choose who is using too much and how, and the response was basically "don't think about it, we will exist in the future and can think about it then." But we exist now. And even if we were to wait, it's still a question we can answer now to have enacted later. The response provided was a bypass, a non-answer.

You are right.

Instead, they explained why these questions are (partially) misguided.

That's also an answer.

They didn't do that either. It reads more like avoidance. The semblance of an answer by posting anything, rather than a plain, direct response. Which gives the original questions more weight: why were they not able to be responded to directly? Are the questions potent? Your reply here is just shifty on shifty.

You really don't understand the problem with asking questions like "well who decides?!?" To literally every proposal of legislation ever?

Because that is what always happens. Every time someone make s a general proposal, for any law at all, there are people making the same old, dumb argument, of "well who decides?!?" Every single time.

Sure you do not believe that all laws ever are wrong, right?

Because the answer to this dumb question is the same as for every law ever. That makes it valid, unless you believe that all laws ever are bad.

I don't understand. We clearly have general laws like "don't shoot people," rather than 320 million individual laws like "John Edmund Smith IV of Springfield, Ohio cannot shoot people." And we didn't start with laws targeting individuals and then broaden it later. "Don't shoot people" was the proper, general rule that addresses the problem of shootings. Laws like this seem to be pretty effective and desirable. I don't know why we wouldn't take the same approach with something like carbon emissions.

> And we didn't start with laws targeting

There are absolutely many laws, that are very targeted and specific. Were you unaware of this?

For a random example, there are laws that probably say something like "A truck, of this size, must follow these specific environmental regulations".

That would be a specific law, that applies to a truck, and required it to do a specific thing, like have a certain mileage efficiency, and it is not general. It is pretty specific, and it is not a general law that applies to all environmental related things.

The world is full of many specific laws, all over the place.