Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10
I wish I lived in Hawaii then. So I wouldn’t pollute so much. And all I had to worry about was the massive amounts of carbon and gasses produced by the volcano I lived on. But at least I wouldn’t get taxed on it.
But yes I know nothing and just enjoy arguing with people. There are no better solutions to this than an awesome tax.
Who are these intelligent people you spoke with that are against carbon tax? I should probably chat with them instead
|
wrt volcano: well humans haven't done a lot to influence the number of volcanos erupting over the last thousand years or so, so that is already baked into the pre industrial CO2 emissions for the planet...again...equilibrium is a thing
As for the bolded part. I never said that was the case, no one here has said that. What we've said is that is one part of a solution and it's the part we have now. It has merits, and it's not perfect, but you gotta start somewhere.
I love talking about this kind of stuff with people who are willing to have an honest conversation from either an informed or curious position.
Stickman is neither.
He's not informed, he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of the program he is against, and he tries to defend is position with nonsense about trees.
He's not curious.
He clearly doesn't know how the program works.
He doesn't understand why things like the number of trees Canada has doesn't matter in the equation.
And he ignores the fact that the only way to get global/absolute emissions down is by reducing per capita emissions (ie he doesn't want to discuss the fact that the 2 numbers are coupled, he just flat out dismisses a mathematical truth)
But instead of following up on any of that, or asking a question, he just doubles down, and says "That's stupid"
You don't have to be an expert on something to have a conversation or debate about it. Lord knows I'm not an expert on any of this. But you at least have to be ready to either back up your position with facts, be ready to consider facts that you previously didn't know, and to acknowledge when what you though were facts are show to be untrue, that you should reconsider any position that was based on that incorrect information.
Edit:
And while I was typing this, I see he called me an idiot.
He hasn't pointed out anything factually incorrect about what I've said, his only argument is per capita numbers don't matter because I guess the mathematical certainty that the only way to reduce absolute emissions is by reducing per capita emissions is just, like, my opinion...and a stupid one at that.
He got me real good with that parrot bit too.
I guess that makes sense when my our opposing positions are essentially:
BBS: the carbon tax is an imperfect system, but it is one method to incentivize Canadians to lower their own GHG emissions which will result in a lower overall number for Canada, which is ultimately all we can control, and without taking care of our own back yard, our calls for anyone else do do anything will fall on deaf ears, and be met with replies of "Every one of your citizens is 4x worse than one of ours"
Stickman: If I ignore math, I can conclude Canada doesn't matter. We have trees, and someone told me that was a good thing. I really don't care about this, but I can sound like I do by presenting a solution that doesn't impact me, and has no more substance than "China bad".