7 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 26.2 ms ] thread
Sure, so we tax carbon and throw the proceeds into R&D on CCS, carbon free energy, replacements for things like concrete etc.

You can whack a "millionaire" tag on it, but the fundamental fact is that people decide to work 40, 60 and higher hour weeks just to have a bigger house or car.

That speaks to the fact that we are hard wired to compete with each other in that way. You just have to make the competition harder across the board.

Why do you think the answer to a problem created by competition is more competition?
It’s completely asinine to make some observation of our material conditions and declare that we’re “hard wired” to act a certain way
The way I see this, the real problem isn't millionaires being posh, but rather products and services not scaling proportionally to the carbon bill.

It's cheaper to be dirty yet we still take showers. Maybe it's time to clean the supply chains instead of blaming the consumers.

Ask yourself this question - how much carbon could one person emit before it's "wrong"? If a single person emitted 100 gigatons of carbon in the name of freedom, would you support it? What about a thousand gigatons?
I'd flip the question around, and ask:

For the average person to have a reasonable standard of living, let's say within an order of magnitude of what I have, and assuming that there are variations within this (e.g. some are poorer, some are richer) -

How many people can we support before we have to start heavily rationing?