You know what, I'm sick of being told to take responsibility for a problem created by people thousands of times more wealthy and powerful than myself.
Why should people who can't even afford homes be paying carbon taxes while the wealthy fly around in private jets and build mega yachts?
Fuck this backwards ass thinking.
You know how corporations and the wealthy generate the majority of carbon emissions?
Well maybe they should also be paying the majority of carbon taxes.
Carbon pricing is not intended to redistribute wealth.
Then what's the fucking point. Wealth distribution is core of all problems in society.
we also don't have evidence of this.
Wrong. You can literally do it with your own taxes. Go look up the corporate taxes for any public company (they're public so they publish those numbers), and figure out what percentage of that company's total wealth it is. Then compare that with how much tax you paid as a percentage of your total wealth.
You can even do it with billionaires because some of them, like musk, actually voluntarily share that info. Last year I paid over 20% of my total wealth in income tax alone, musk paid less 4%.
Aren't corporations exempt from the tax and allowed to buy carbon credits at a much lower price instead? And aren't entire industries exempt, like agriculture (the single largest generator of carbon emissions in Canada)?
And don't those rebates for the carbon tax stop at just $61k income for an individual? Thats barely enough to buy a 50 year old trailer in BC (and you don't own the land it's on) last I checked. Considering the cost of living I'm sure that "low income" cutoff is way too low.
All that amounts to middle class people who are barely making their mortgage payments paying more than corporate giants are.
When you measure tax contributions as a percentage of total wealth, corporations and ultra rich always pay less than everyone else.
Why doesn't that letter saying anything about how the middle and lower classes are disproportionately affected by such taxes?
Let me guess, these "leading economists" are all filthy rich themselves.
Panik: your Debian stable system is so ancient it still contains the heartbleed bug.
So can you answer his question or did you just see an opportunity to brag about yourself.
"hi my car is making a noise that sounds exactly like a faulty wheel bearing. I think my wheel bearing is broken."
"No, it's not. You can go now."
I don't see how this analogy makes their arrogant dismissals any better.
I stopped reading after the third book too, and that's exactly the sense I got.
There's no conclusions, just character deaths. It's just an unraveling web that becomes less and less coherent the further it goes.
Caffeine is pretty well studied and it's known that the long term health effects are nothing close to cocaine. I doubt if there was any good science back then on the long term effects of cocaine, let alone enough education for the populace to know and understand it.
However social perceptions may change anyway. What we consider as not serious may be considered much more serious in the future. For example many people get headaches or even migraines as a withdrawal symptom of caffeine, and we don't consider a headache to be serious.
But I saw a Star Trek episode once where Picard gets a headache and it was a big deal because those had been solved for hundreds of years by that time! Turns out the ferengi were controlling his mind or something. So caffeine may be considered a serious drug in the future if it interferes with the detection of alien mind control devices.
There is also salt bloom! But that happens on smoked sausage like pepperoni or smokies.
What evidence do you need of the wealthy consuming more than the poor? All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you.