Define harmful.

We can start with: is the top N% of pollution generators, independently tracking particulates, greenhouse gasses, plastic waste, pfas, fly ash, water pollutants, etc.

Make N% approximately 10%.

You've then got a pretty good start on "harmful".

Companies that directly or indirectly most contribute to GHG, in _all_ their operations, including suppliers, manufacturing, logistics.

The "elites" in this situation are hundreds of millions of Americans driving trucks through the drive-thru at Hardees. It's not three guys you can browbeat into submission. It's an entire broken culture.

Even if this was the only/biggest source, you can browbeat the automotive industry to stop making so many heavy, gas guzzling vehicles. You can browbeat politicians into prioritizing public transportation & vehicle regulations over lobbying efforts from the automotive industry.

Our "broken culture" isn't innate in us, it was designed.

The US government could overturn the "pickup war" instantly - just make vehicles under a certain (small) size entirely tax-free in various ways.

The market would adapt quite quickly.

Or states can adopt the minor and simple policies of California, where incrementally higher registration fees by weight, commercial registration for all pickups, and fuel taxes only slightly higher than other states and nowhere near as high as other developed nations have led to a private vehicle fleet with no trucks among the top-selling vehicles.

As 12 states have done:

https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/mobilesources/pages/st...

No surprises, it's the "states you'd actually want to live in" overrepresented as per usual.

That's not even one of the measures that I mentioned, but yes!

nice rant but no -- the data on the site shows that individual transportation is NOT at the top of emitters; rather it is industrial infrastructure that creates fuels and industrial infrastructure using fuels for heavy materials.

https://climatetrace.org/explore

Guess what "industrial infrastructure that creates fuels and industrial infrastructure using fuels for heavy materials" is overwhelmingly used for? Hint, it's not for mega yachts and Musk/Bezos rockets.

It most certainly is the fault of a bunch of blue collar working stiffs grabbing a sausage biscuit and a coffee on the way to a job that a bunch of sanctimonious SWEs rely on every day in a thousand different ways, but pretend like are unimportant dinosaurs in a digital world.

I mean, all that electricity and raw materials mined for those 15 billion computing devices running all the shite social media code that SV SWEs have foisted upon the world doesn’t have any impact at all…it’s just that poor bastard in his F150 and his damned sandwich.

Elites: I think you're overestimating how much of a contribution "elites" add to co2 consumption. They might emit disproportionately higher co2 than the median citizen, but that's canceled out by the fact that they're so few of them.

Companies: Works great in theory[1], not so well in practice[2]. Turns out most people only pay lip service to climate change/environment, and scatter at the prospect of paying out of pocket for it.

[1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...

Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after. It's a widely used tool, because it's efficient and therefore cheap.

It's only really the US that lags on putting a price on emissions. Mostly because their legislation mechanisms are in the pocket of big oil.

>Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after

Source? It took me a few minutes to find what the piece of legislation was called (Climate Commitment Act), but it's surprisingly hard to find what the bill actually does. The first result I found was a website from the state of washington[1], which only contains vague statements like "A market-based solution" and "Cleaner air for overburdened communities", without actual concrete measures. The second result from washington state university[2] isn't much better. It seems like the bill institutes some sort of cap and trade system with details to be hammered out later, which isn't the same as a straight carbon tax (as proposed in the ballot measure) and the financial impact is much less clear. I suspect the latter is why it was passed at all.

[1] https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act

[2] https://csanr.wsu.edu/the-climate-commitment-act-is-coming/

Cap and trade and carbon fees are broadly interchangeable as pricing mechanisms.

Each specific location has carve outs and exemptions and phase-ins etc. but basically, farmers will be able to earn roughly $40 dollars per ton of emissions avoided, and other large industries will be paying $40 per ton of emissions and that figure will change as they measure progress to meet their commitments to reduce emmisions by 95%.

It might also drop to $30 if they link up their market with California and Quebec.

For comparison, the ballot measure intended to:

> enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020;

> increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met;

and

> use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.

Perhaps, but one or two airline flights and you emitted for quite a few people living in poverty (who don't and will never fly).

Elites fly a lot. Own multiple homes. Multiple cars. Etc. I'm not so sure the delta is that wide.

> They might emit disproportionately higher co2 than the median citizen, but that's canceled out by the fact that they're so few of them.

No it's not. They set a bad example. We can clearly see they put their own pride before environmental conservation.

How can you expect common people to make sacrifices that the elites are not making?