At its core the reason why I dislike both those notions is that they miss the point of the climate crisis. What they presuppose is that we can price our way out of an emissions crisis that we now know threatens the future of life on earth. And the simple fact is that we can’t do that. There is no way we can be priced out of this issue. We can only solve the emissions crisis by stopping emissions. And taxing them won’t do that, any more than taxing tobacco has ever stopped smoking. Other measures – like bans – have been needed to make progress on that goal. That is even more the case for carbon.
The gal that runs the site needs to abandon either the progressive priors or the carbon priors, their priors do not mix.
Carbon damages can be assessed and applied, but not by government. She simply moves the uncertainty from the market to the voters. Government, in that case, will always reserve the co2 usage for itself, an unbalanced system. Yives is a loser on this battle, her Naked Capitalism Orwellian priors are going to collapse in contradiction.
I know fairly close what the cost of global warming is to me, and how much others are liable. It is an easy calculation, the climate scientists are fairly accurate about the extra hours of heat, and at my rate, I suffer about $500/yr easily computed.
I cannot sue, I cannot sue mainly because Yives and her ilk have placed government spending on a higher priority, and the government out here in California will not recognize my tort. They do not private recognize tort cases precisely because of idiots at Naked Capitalism and their Orwellian view have put government spending above co2 pollution.. Naked capitalism and the progressive priors are the main cause of global warming.
No comments:
Post a Comment