107
submitted 4 months ago by laverabe@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pizza_Rat@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

Because a carbon tax incremented over a period of years would achieve the desired outcome with much less administrative burden and economic impact.

We should use fossil fuels sometimes - when it's worth paying the real cost!

[-] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Problem is the total accumulated CO2 already there. We would need to be net zero yesterday to mitigate imo.

Capitalistic institutions haven't been serious or motivated enough to make any real effort. They'll make up their next cop-out like carbon credits or whatever

[-] Pizza_Rat@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

It can, and will, get worse.

A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.

[-] Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 4 months ago

You'd think that.. it sunk the Australian government when they tried to implement it 10-15 yrs ago

[-] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

Canada has one, though it's not particularly aggressive, as far as I can tell. They redistribute the tax money so no one actually pays extra over the full year, but high carbon products are still more expensive.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html

I have no idea how the tax is calculated.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

the first step to caring for a injury is to stop further harm. a combat medic covers their patient's wounds from falling dust and dirt by placing their body between - then evacuates the patient to safer location.

we have to stop the bullshit uses of petrochemicals. the flagrant waste, the waste for recreation, the waste for convenience, toys etc.

plastics for food, plastics for medical tech, industrial use and exploration - force everything else to reusables.

the best way to overcome the enormous build-up already accumulated IS TO STOP ADDING TO IT IMMEDIATELY.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

Because having an electric car is for rich people and is poor can't fucking afford a Tesla

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

You're acting like there aren't affordable used EVs that would function perfectly well for people in a position to have an EV

My 2018 Leaf is more than sufficient for the majority of commuters and is cheaper than last year's Honda Civic. Oh and bonus, a lot of them just had their batteries swapped under warranty due to a manufacturing defect and have a fresh new battery and warranty!

So, assuming someone either has the ability to charge at home or close to (I lived with this car in an apartment complex for a year so yes even that is possible, if not annoying) then they should be able to locate an affordable EV if that's their desired engine type

this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
107 points (85.4% liked)

politics

18075 readers
3804 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS