If CO2 emissions is a catastrophic problem to solve by aggressive means, the proper way to go about it would be to first establish what amount of anthropologic yearly production is acceptable. Some cap, if you will.
You would then distribute that cap to every nation based on per-capita allowances. It would be up to the nation to determine how to spend that allowance.
Any individual, group, or nation exceeding this limit would be taxed based on the amount exceeded. This would have the effect of reducing emissions because taxation represents a loss of economic value, and economic value is directly related to consumption and emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
|
Looks like a pretty good loophole. Of course, powering it as intended will require CO2 emissions.
For now, it seems there is no reasonable way to avoid a net CO2 emission to procure necessary materials for transportation machines, or to power them, or both.
Of course, my point was that setting an acceptable amount of emissions limit for individuals is arbitrary. People (perceived as) emitting more than us are selfish and irresponsible, and those emitting less than us are primitive. It's like Carlin says, those driving faster are maniacs, and those going slower are idiots.
Then, what constitutes a good vehicle and a bad one also needs to consider use. Is a person with a 10 MPG vehicle that drives 1,000 mile a year worse than someone that has a 100 MPG vehicle that drives 10,000 miles?
It's simply absurd to demonize a hybrid as not being clean enough after claiming faith in nothing, morality to be subjective, and the necessity to meet a certain arbitrary and undefined standard of emissions.
A decision may involve impulsiveness, but is a decision nothing but impulsiveness? If so, why does acting as if it doesn't (we all behave as if it doesn't) end up being very useful? My belief is both in ballistics and in course correction. Seemingly and paradoxically incompatible, but then the (poorly described) theory suffers no greater than any other theory.