Holy shit, somebody is actually pointing their finger at the right people!
I can’t believe he’s not talking about drinking straws or plastic bags or some other laughable distraction.
I don’t think anyone has ever talked about drinking straws or plastic bags as having a meaningful effect on carbon emissions. Reducing their use does reduce the amount of plastic that winds up in landfills and the wilderness, which is the actual point of those proposals.
From some quick data I found, aviation is responsible for 2.5% of carbon emissions. In the US, about 17% of flights are private. Probably a fair number of those are hobbiests, but even if you take that number at face value, you could summarily execute all people who take private jets, and you’d reduce carbon emissions by about 0.425 percent. I’m skeptical that that is going to really make a massive difference in the grand scheme of things.
Carbon tax. We needed it 20 years ago but even more now. Ironically a Republican idea that has been ignored for years.
Right. There’s no reason why private jets shouldn’t be paying to offset 100% of their emissions. For cars it’s a different story because it’s a tax on the poor for something they need. Private jets are purely luxuries, only used by the wealthy, and have a viable alternative.
Maybe a dumb question, but how does providing money actually offset emissions? Are there emission vacuums somewhere that require payment to operate?
Well, trees are one of them. More money means more trees planted.
Or that money could be invested in renewable energy, which will reduce emissions in other areas.
And when you increase the cost of something, you get less of it, so taxing emissions should mean fewer emissions.
And so on.
Nope, fuck cars. Tax carbon, give free public bus passes. Easy.
The closest bus to me is about a 1.5 hour walk, with the path options either being, the side of a 70 mph highway, or the side of 45 mph side roads (no sidewalks).
The bus pass would just take up space in my wallet and nothing more.
I work from home to reduce my car usage dramatically, and already pay annual taxes on the car itself as well as every gallon of gas (in top of standard sales tax) that goes into it. The car is 15 years old and gets over 30mpg.
Your ‘easy’ solution requires uprooting people’s lives dramatically and is, dare I say it, an incredibly naive take on the real problems that the planet, nations, and individual people actually have.
And before you say ‘move somewhere with people’ I do live where people are, I live in between two of the biggest cities in my state, moving closer to those cities requires a) a huge sum of liquid cash, and b) a huge increase in my cost of living.
Think critically about the world you are in, have perspective about other people’s living situations, and have respect for your peers. Blanket solutions are historically ineffective.
They’re totally forgetting that people need to live where other people don’t. Farming. Solar fields. Forestry. Mining. Wind farms.
Thbk realistically about the world you’re in. Ban cars and buses will be everywhere.
This isn’t a problem in poor countries.
In what poor country are cars banned?
Funny how you respond to just this comment but not the others.
What bus is going to run to bring farmers to massive farms, miles apart?
The busses that run between cities, like in most countries
And what about the places that aren’t between cities? Rural areas are larger than you think. You’re expecting people to walk 4 miles and wait 2 hours for a bus on a regular basis.
Not everyone lives in cities, @fuckcars@lemmy.world
Frequent flyer tax plz
Removed by mod
Yes, tax them to the bone.
Yeah, but tell me how I need to drive my Prius to the grocery store less.
her response is insanely tone-deaf too lol
“Well, no one can be perfect”. 100% true, but everyone can choose to not fly in a private plane lol
But but… politicians taxing their wealthy donors? I’ll believe it when I see it.
There’s a chunk of the Democrats, notably ‘progressives,’ who are willing to do just that. Markey is one.
Yup I’d like to see it, but Dems tend to do a lot of virtue signaling without follow through
The major issue blocking their action is that every Republican votes against it, and a handful of Democrats are bought off, so they vote with the Republicans. The Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives, so this means that no new climate legislation is going to pass before the 2024 election.
I get it, but isn’t it strange that we’re always chasing the dragon, it’s always just within reach.
I wouldn’t say that.
- In 1959, Teller spoke, but nothing happened
- In 1988, we got congressional testimony from Hansen, but no legislation to speak of
- In 2008 we had cap-and-trade legislation, but it didn’t get a vote in the Senate because supporters counting votes saw it couldn’t get even 40 votes
- in 2022 the Inflation Reduction act passed, getting 50 + 1 votes in the Senate, after being converted in to an almost-all-carrots-no-stick type bill to appease the few Democrats who were being paid off by the fossil fuels industry.
We’re on the right trajectory here, just not nearly fast enough
Skip the tax go straight to execution
Did someone say that my million dollar plane will cost another million dollars to operate? Oh noes, I can’t…LOL - it’s just money; I found 2 millions by raising the price of my apartments by $100 a month. Enjoy your new rent, proles!
Guess we should just do nothing then.
No…taxing them doesnt get rid of them. Rich people have plenty of money to pay fees/fines/penalties. That being said, there is no reason for overly draconian measures either. This climate thing is a tad oversold. Sensible, affordable solutions that dont wreck our way of life can work. Nothing more than that.
