If California’s goal was to actually reduce carbon emissions, then it would increase taxes on fossil fuels every year until the target emissions were met.
And before someone chimes in on that hurting poor people, California could use those taxes to redistribute cash to poorer people.
But the goal is not to actually reduce emissions, it is to say they are trying to while not really reducing quality of life (i.e. making sacrifices, especially amongst the richer half). And in the process, create tons of avenues for corruption and bureaucracy to suck productivity out of society.
We want to pretend like we do stuff for the environment or future generations, but we still want that detached single family 2.5k sq ft house, and the SUVs, and the tropical vacations. And, of course, it is going to be a hard sell to get a small portion of the world’s population to do that if everyone else is not.
but we still want that detached single family 2.5k sq ft house, and the SUVs, and the tropical vacations. And, of course, it is going to be a hard sell to get a small portion of the world’s population to do that if everyone else is not.
Most of that would be fine if it were built and operated by nuclear and renewables though.
I have been hearing that for at least 20 years. There is a reason fossil fuels reign supreme, their cost to convenience ratio cannot be beat (including regulatory challenges).
Comments
If California’s goal was to actually reduce carbon emissions, then it would increase taxes on fossil fuels every year until the target emissions were met.
And before someone chimes in on that hurting poor people, California could use those taxes to redistribute cash to poorer people.
But the goal is not to actually reduce emissions, it is to say they are trying to while not really reducing quality of life (i.e. making sacrifices, especially amongst the richer half). And in the process, create tons of avenues for corruption and bureaucracy to suck productivity out of society.
We want to pretend like we do stuff for the environment or future generations, but we still want that detached single family 2.5k sq ft house, and the SUVs, and the tropical vacations. And, of course, it is going to be a hard sell to get a small portion of the world’s population to do that if everyone else is not.
but we still want that detached single family 2.5k sq ft house, and the SUVs, and the tropical vacations. And, of course, it is going to be a hard sell to get a small portion of the world’s population to do that if everyone else is not.
Most of that would be fine if it were built and operated by nuclear and renewables though.
I have been hearing that for at least 20 years. There is a reason fossil fuels reign supreme, their cost to convenience ratio cannot be beat (including regulatory challenges).