321–330 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's two things to this. Yes, we shouldn't be buying shampoo in the disposable plastic containers - but corporations shouldn't be able to manufacture them in the first place.
So .. what should we be buying shampoo in? Not glass in the shower? Non-recyclable tetra pack?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it is us who are actually performing the "consumerism". It is us who buys tons of garbage and then throw it out. If only we could collectively incentivize more efficient lifestyles.
It is us who collectively decide not to collectively incentivize more efficient lifestyles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of immigrants use air travel and they don't really have an alternative. A 2-day adventure involving trains, cars, ferries,hotels is much more environmentally (and physically) costly than a $300 flight.
"A 2-day adventure involving trains, cars, ferries,hotels is much more environmentally (and physically) costly than a $300 flight" Based on what? Sea travel is really quite efficient, so are trains, especially when we're talking about French trains powered by French nuclear. And why are immigrants a reason that its regressive? Low paid eastern Europeans aren't going to be flying around Europe, well paid international…
> Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
And this doesn't address that, it just attempts to price the poor out of flying... Awesome stuff.
This will have zero impact on the affluent, we'll continue to fly whenever and wherever we want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think we are using the same logic, but if people want to argue that Europe and Africa are not physically connected by land, then I'm going to start claiming that England and Scotland aren't either, given the distance between Carlisle and Newcastle is less than from Port Said to Suez.
Oh wait, for some reason I was under the impression that the Bering Strait would still dry up or freeze during some parts of the year allowing to reach America going east without taking a boat or a plane. My bad. But even taking this into account, I'm not sure I understand your latest comment (the one I'm replying to right now). EDIT: ok, after reading your comment for the umpteenth time I understood. I just have to…
> Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
There's a constant war of words here: are individuals responsible for cleaning up their footprint, or are corporations responsible for their dirty practices, or are governments responsible for putting policies to guide the economy? The answer is: we need all three. We will not tackle climate change without strong change on the personal, corporate, and governmental levels.
Set incentives to make the consumers choose the more environmentally conscious choice, via a carbon / plastic / waste tax to cover the externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope I got you to look at a map. Maps are great. As a prize for admitting how bad you are at geography, here's a political map in Waterman's butterfly projection. - https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/waterman-butterfly/full.png
Well that's... different :) For a moment I thought it was one of those map which for some reason don't include NZ, then I noticed it's actually on the top left. As far as I understand, different projections are more "correct" ways of laying out the globe on a plane, so while I have your attention I'd like to ask what advantage does this has over other projections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a problem with that definition, pigovian taxes are obviously going to cut down use. So the choice of label seems to be a political one.
I suppose a better definition would be that sin taxes are meant to cut down on personal use , while pigovian are meant to offset external factors which the use of the product/service causes. Of course, each of these taxes are going to end up cutting down use, as it would lower demand due to a higher cost, but the idea is that a pigovian tax is successful even if the use doesn't go down significantly, as the tax proce…
Both Pigouvian & sin taxes usually go into general revenue and are rarely targeted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could only pick two out of those three, which would you choose?
If governments put a price on carbon, individuals and corporations will do their parts as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. "Without any international agreement on taxing fuel, it is highly likely that moves to impose duty on international flights, either at a domestic or European level, would encourage ‘tankering’: carriers filling their aircraft as full as possible whenever they landed outside the EU to avoid paying tax. Clearly this would be entirely counterp…
It seems like regulators could just tax planes based on how much fuel they leave with, regardless of the source?