1. So, fund innovation instead of heaping on even more taxes.
2. Yet later, you say it was the first step in global mitigation. Keep your arguments consistent. Also, if you agree with this, then what the OP's friend said was correct. If past climate agreements weren't good at preventing climate change, what were they? They were just austerity/taxes.
3. And as I have repeatedly said, animals are a non-negligible contribution to our co2 output. And you're saying our carbon emissions are equivalent to a housefire. So anything helps.
4. The original point was about convincing people that carbon taxes were good. Regardless of what the economics said, you failed at that.
5. I'm not going to respond to you if you won't even read my sources and just claim I'm lying.
6. Yeah, i refuse to believe a non-obligatory agreement involving us spending ludicrous amounts of momey was a good first step.
7. You said earlier if we didn't do anything, it would set a bad example for other countries.>>9392521
2. Deciding how people should be taxed cannot be a 100% objective.
3. Okay, then I don't care that you think we should throw away 100s of billions of dollars.
4. So both? Either ways, even extreme taxes resulting in lost jobs is a form of austerity that's really unnecessary considering other countries aren't required to follow rules.
5. That's one of the key points. There's no rule saying you need to shut down coal plants but there's diplomatic pressure to. So if we're not going to do that, why should we even join the agreement?
6. Sorry, by carbon tax, I meant every climate agreement in the past has unfairly targeted first world countries.
7. Yes, it's a great idea to tax an energy resource that we absolutely need so governments can line their pockets with our tax money that can be used as they see fit. I see absolutely no problem with this.
Clearly there's no point in continuing this since you seem hellbent on throwing away your money.