107
Opinion | Why Don’t We Just Ban Fossil Fuels?
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
107 points (85.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3573 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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!
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
It can, and will, get worse.
A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.
You'd think that.. it sunk the Australian government when they tried to implement it 10-15 yrs 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.