This is the kind of thing that is inspiring to young people.
Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.
Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.
Of all news stories, the ones involving court cases are the least inspiring.
This isn’t about a disadvantaged person overcoming adversity. It’s a bunch of suits sitting on a room.
I’m in my 40s, and for a good chunk of my childhood overpopulation and resource scarcity were big fears.
It took me a like time to accept the global warming consensus, because that’s what happens when experts cry wolf.
This looks like an interesting case, but also very specific to Montana.
You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too.
Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?
You could steal everything for free, why don't you?
It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.
What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline?
I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes.
People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).
I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
Very unhelpful
Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody
We must be kind, to make things better
Environmentalism used to be about direct impact - contaminating waterways and the like. Moving to these more esoteric issues makes measuring and showing impact near impossible, and also makes people care less.
>Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.
I don't know if that's supposed to be about me, but I'm not from "murica". You and I are nearly neighbors, only separated by Poland. But I'm not proud of my country either: I vote for what I think will help us get better, but about 70% votes for a "let it burn" party
> Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.
Although we at least have some tax on some of the fuels (kerosine being a notable omission), ours is also not about discouragement, as far as I know. Fuel prices are dominated by market effects, not by discouragement, and evidently the high market price is not sufficient to make the difference that would be needed.
Maybe it's similar to movie/software piracy: not a pricing problem but a service problem (as Gabe Newell said). Having realistic alternatives rather than prohibitive pricing
Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve
More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a few, and hold back actual technological progress for decades (see Ethanol as an example)
For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world as we know it, always 10 years off before we are all dead. having lived many decades now, hearing these 10 year predictions often, and seeing them never come well color me unamused, and unmoved by this latest call to action.
Instead i choose to believe we will over come the challenges in the future has we have the ones from the past. With technological advancement, and market economics. Not government
Literally the opposite of what I said
> For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world
I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve and we reduce to a much smaller population while dealing with the fallout and having to rebuild. You may want to look into the consequences of global warming before judging whether it's similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about
> what you perceive to be a problem
If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. Can't help people that don't do logic
literally not what I said... or even implied
>>similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about
I am talking about world ending predictions in the realm of climate change... There have been many, and continue to be many that if we do not "act now" it will be "too late" these claims have been persistent since the 70's at least yet very few of those predictions have come true and then it is explained away with "well in the next decade we will be correct this time"... trust us we are "The Experts™©"
Climate activist are the living embodiment of the Boy who cried wolf parable
Could you be any more specific?
As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions.
Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492
Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they?
Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many.
You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).
I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.
> What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).
I'm afraid that climate change, at least if we would all apply US levels of action, would result in non-US levels of poverty for all but the wealthiest few. Depending also on how heavy-handed/inhumane one wants to be towards displaced immigrants from places that become mostly inhospitable or below sea level (most people worldwide live in coastal regions)
Of course, when the price of oil starts dropping, they'll have to extract at a faster rate to keep profits up.
Priceless