There’s a lot of talk in N about the “people health” and how people need to eat less sugar etc. And how things like sugar should be taxed more. But you can still buy as much candy and whatever at the grocery store. And it doesn’t seem terribly expensive, either. (Alcohol is, though.)

There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative.

EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.

You can choose to pay more taxes/fees at least, people already do that for certain things that are designed to nudge people to behave properly (e.g. pay 10 cents for a bag to encourage you to bring reusable bags and some people just don't care). Sin taxes are not new things.

Climate change is stopped by doing meaningful things like stopping oil exports, moving the grid to renewable energy,

Not shifting the burden to individuals who contribute almost nothing compared to giant corporations, And doing werid things like banning meat, imagine if they did the opposite, they hike vegetable prices because you don't eat enough meat.

If this happens(the article doesn't say this has anything to do with climate change specifically) it would be just a giant distraction from Norway's role in climate change by producing Oil.

> compared to giant corporations and doing werid things banning meat

Presumably these giant corporations are after the profits that can be booked by serving the demand. The question is how much of that demand is ultimately attributable to demands generated by the behaviors and wants of the lay people, even if they are not the proximate cause.

Avoiding externalities is a thing. I would rather have that loop hole plugged instead of a persistent socialization of risks and losses and privatization of the gains, now that would be a free market.

> Ah yes, the great "individual freedom" to screw over the many people already affected by climate change. Thanks buddy.

So you'd be OK with full-on tyranny? Because there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with.

> You're also shifting the discussion from climate change

Not shifting anything, I was giving an example of how certain items could be taxed by linking them to current problems. You can easily extend that example to other things beyond climate change.

> there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with.

Yes, you live on a finite world with a lot of people and many things you choose to do affects other people too. Now, you may choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and straw-man everything you don't like as "full-on tyranny" if you wish, but that's not how it works and at that point you're no longer really part of any constructive dialogue. There is always a balance, and it's rarely easy.