Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
And people dislike global warming deniers because of their strawman arguments.  I'm not on a crusade for no suburbs, I'm on a crusade for suburbs that pay for themselves.
(Likewise, if you're going to emit CO2, I have no problems with that if you're paying for the externalities. It should be a level playing field though, i.e. if you make CO2 pay for its externalities, but don't do the same for alternative energy sources, you actually end up with a sub-optimal level of fossil fuel use.)
There's also a fair bit of hypocrisy in calling Tinordi's argument a hyperbole, then using one yourself in your description of my arguments. |
Fair enough, that's an excellent point. I'll amend. "They're a lot like SebC in his quest for economically sustainable development, loudly hammering the same point home over and over again"
Does that suffice?
My sentence about you was intended as partially tongue in cheek, since I don't think we disagree about suburbs or global warming.
Since my opinions have been called into question, I'll summarize them:
1) Level playing field for development, everybody carries their own cost. This would include levies on inner city redevelopment and to a greater extent on suburban development. I think this should be done regionally to prevent suburb development from moving to adjacent areas.
2) Pollution of all kinds should have an economic solution. If it's more economic to continue to emit a pollutant and then sequester or otherwise deal with an equal amount of that same pollutant, lets do that. I don't care whether that pollutant is hydrocarbons, CO2, or any other externality (polluted water, dead animals, etc) Top down UN prescriptions are not the way forward, imo.