Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate.

Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.”

https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...

View on HN

So I thought the consensus among economists, hn, etc was that the best most painless way to solve climate crisis is a carbon tax, that doesn't drastically alter the economy all at once. So what to do with the tax money? Presumably invest in green energy. A lot of that can help people directly, like solar and nuclear jobs, and indirectly, like better trains, or subsidies for the poor on any essential goods that price was raised by the carbon tax a lot. We can probably find a use for all the money raised by placing a carbon tax at the rate needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if we put the tax at the right rate and have some money afterwards, what's wrong with free college?

That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school strikes last year, and also concerns the UN: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima.... See also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/

> We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

No matter how you put it, climate change is completely unsolvable without politcs, because solving climate change requires, most of all, cooperation between countries.

My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude, which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.

Ah, my bad, I totally misread your comment then. I agree with you, that comment is next-level denial.

"The world is dying but I think saving it would be tantamount to communism, which is evil because it's killed millions." Excellent logicking.

You'll take basically any excuse to not do anything about climate, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com