philosophy is pretentious?

@deg The slippery slope is not inherently a fallacy.

A very mentally lazy response. Did you even read what I said? I can just as easily call to the appeal to authority fallacy on you. But that doesn't get us anywhere. I could argue that what I said is not even a fallacy, considering there is extensive record of government bureaus exceeding their intended purpose, but that's besides the point. At the end of the day, it's you who is pushing for radical change, and tearing the fabrics of society. The burden is on you to come up with solutions that don't compromise people's standard of living, and to actually sell that to the people who you are going to affect, but the only thing you provide is for it to be forced upon them, whether they like it or not, as if they are serfs. I've already given you examples on how carbon taxes have fucked over much of the working class in the prairies. And climate activists want to keep pushing those measures further and further. So why should anyone put up with such repeated acts of aggression on their livelihoods?

@deg: We can argue until the cows come home about climate change policies but I would say these discussions are missing the 1000 Ib gorilla in the room; our growth based economies are not sustainable. GDP is a meaure of consumption and this consumption stems from us using various inputs and transforming them into usuable goods and services. This conversion of inputs uses energy and produces waste which we call pollution. As GDP rises the rate of consumption increases meaning, all things being equal, we a consume a greater number of inputs (resources), energy (fossil fuels) and waste (pollution).

Resource/energy depletion and climate change are two parts of the same coin. They both stem from consumption rates being too high. We can talk about reducing this but then the economy will ultimately fail. Our economies can only grow because our entire global financial system is based on money being generated by debt. In my eyes, we can either save the environment or we can "save" the economy. We can't do both, not as the economy is currently configured anyway. I put "save" in brackets because I don't think the economy can be saved in the long-run as some limiting factor (be it resource, energy or climate choas) will ultimately stifle economic growth at some point.

@DreamWindow appeal to the right authority is not a fallacy so appeal to climate scientists is right in this case of climate change

anyway like i said i only want carbon taxes for the rich but you keep doing slippery slope that it will affect even the poor same with every taxes for the rich i propose in the past you keep saying it will affect all tax payers

at least i know some solutions or compromise unlike you 2 that do not have any and wants the problem of global warming to solve itself naturally

Carbon taxes (and most climate change policies in some way) are often considered inherently regressive because working class or lower income families are typically more carbon reliant than they are neutral or positive. But nobody in policy really ever advocates for carbon taxes on their own this way. For instance, there are individual rebates rolled out as a counterbalance and quite a few people are typically ahead after tax computations. For those who aren't, the vast majority of people's taxes come out of housing and income, and if you put out a list of things that are fundamentally hurting poor people, a carbon tax would be near the bottom of the list. It's not a tax that's going to starve you out and if there's something that needs to change, it's higher wages for these people. A carbon tax isn't killing the poor. Capitalism is.

In addition, most of the talk around the carbon tax is with regard to corporate emissions and is designed to incentivize corporations to decarbonize. There's a lot of good evidence that this exists. These taxes are incredibly effective. A lot of corporate players in power generation, for instance, which is pretty carbon intensive, are much keener to decarbonize with a carbon tax than without. In addition, because you can invest in renewables and cut prices against your competitors if they continue to rely on the costly fossil fuels, the cost of such a tax isn't even passed onto consumers.

For starters, this already exists. Europe has EU Allowances, in the US, they're rolling out statewide allowances on carbon (some of the popular ones includes Washington Carbon and RGGI). There are massive incentives for offsetting your carbon emissions. These are relatively new concepts, but there's been other things that have been around for years like subsidies for renewable generation in solar, wind, geothermal depending on which country, municipality, etc.

The problem is government incentives on clean energy is a complete fucking spook. Anybody who works in commodities, specifically in the oil/gas/renewables complex knows this because it just creates markets for mostly profiteers than people who are actually invested in saving the environment. The allowances I mentioned earlier? People use them to make speculative bets. I'll agree on a cost-analysis perspective that I would much rather have a solar, wind, and geothemeral profiteer than an oil mogul, but the differences on an environmental level are currently negligible to me when a lot of renewable companies simply do basic work to ensure some semblance of carbon neutrality only to profit on a planet that is still degrading.

I also want to add that people thinking that we should enact "moderate" change because they think a radical change would harm poor people are operating under a primarily first world / privileged lens. Climate change is a global problem and we should understand our carbon footprint in a more cosmopolitan and global way. There are very few initiatives that we can take that would hurt more low-income and impoverished people more than what we're already doing, because the status quo hurts poor people the most. Anybody who looks at the pollution of nuclear and other waste we do off the shores of Africa or the intense oppression of global south citizens because corporate backed nation-states need access to their fossil fuels should immediately rid themselves of the notion that decarbonizing at a dramatic rate "hurts poor people the most." It doesn't. It's one of the first steps in a long restorative justice process.

That's not what I said. I said they're typically regressive. Regressive taxes exist everywhere. By this logic, a sales tax and payroll taxes also target poor people, which could be true and would in fact be more appropriate to address than a carbon tax. I think fixating on carbon taxes when literally every other part of modern American life is designed to undercut lower income families just seems a little disingenuous.

And again, as I mentioned, carbon taxes have proven to be good at decarbonizing certain carbon intensive sectors in ways that don't pass off additional costs to consumers. Power generation is a great example.

The study here cited is pretty questionable. First of all, simply measuring by consuming more goods and services is not an indication that these people are faring better. By this metric, it's possible people in countries with high savings rates are poorer than impoverished people in America, so consumption on its own is a pretty bad economic indicator. Overall, I'm not sure why someone would advocate for working class people by fighting against a carbon tax while peddling talking points that mislead lower income families into thinking they're more well off than the vast majority of Europe. The very article you're citing even admits this:



In reality, the OECD data itself is pretty clear. Childhood poverty is worse on average in the states than most OECD/European countries. The poverty gap between income classes is also wider in American than most other countries save for some pretty EU countries that are in really bad shape (Italy). These relative values matter because prices on consumption get worse for people when gaps like this widen. So even if you're spending more on consumption, using that as a measurement is misleading because it's by necessity and not by choice.

The framing is also poor because there's no real socio-cultural distinction between American and European systems. Europe has VAT and other consumption taxes, so it doesn't surprise me at all that Americans look "richer" by comparison. The American tax system naturally results in more discretionary spending and consequently consumption because it doesn't really pay for certain social safety nets and medical bills the way Europe does. These are two separate systems and choosing to evaluate this way tells me that the purpose of the study isn't to inform but to use arbitrary economic methods that seem legitimate to pass off a pre-determined conclusion.

I'm also not going to get into the fact that this is a Libertarian Think Tank and I don't regard think tanks as generally good sources especially when they have such a silly political skew, all of the other problems listed above notwithstanding. I also took a look at the website where they got their study and was immediately met with an entire page of climate science skepticism masquerading as "Just Facts," which again, does not do much to really inspire confidence in this analysis.

Finally, as I mentioned above, I don't think the poor should be excluded to just people in America, especially since global capitalism necessarily creates vast swaths of poverty and exploited labor abroad. The impoverished in America, yes, by virtue of being in a global colonizing superpower, naturally reap some of the rewards stolen by other poor people in the Global South and elsewhere. That doesn't really change the fact that they also struggle and often live in destitute circumstances, but yes they are perhaps better than other countries that have not fared better in a post-WW2, post-cold war, post-9/11 era.

I don't think you actually read the post, but the point I'm making is that there is no end met in the process. You posted that the government should do something, and I'm telling you that all of these things exist, but they're just smokes and mirrors to essentially make a buck. It's simply a matter of profiteering. Actual change isn't going to happen with financial instruments, coupons, bonds, etc.

I'm not sure why me complaining has anything to do with anything, but I'll just go ahead and say that I'm a part of the commodities complex so it's less that I'm complaining and just more aware that climate change initiatives by private corporations is a farce. And yes, I make money off this too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, your final point that "the quality of life is heavily dependant on the economic output of any given area" assumes economic output is something meaningful. A road is built. A school is functioning. There's sales of food and other necessities. This is not even remotely what I'm talking about.

Profiting from financial instruments by taking speculative bets is not real economic output. Nobody but a hedge fund (especially since retail investors cannot trade commodities or complex instruments like this) or some other institutional investor benefits and these are people who are not remotely in the conversation of "working class poor people."

That's a fair assessment. But I think it is a testament to the values displayed in it, since it is still relevant in discussion to this day. I have yet to read it in full, so I will spare you a proper assessment of the man and his works.



People tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what those terms actually mean. A free man is a man who is left to his own devices. He is not owed any form of material standard, but he is owed some manner of human decency. Now of course we can go deep into what material standards are, and what human decency means, but in general, I think that's a good assessment on what a free man is, as opposed to a slave, who is someone who is being held back by others, for their own purposes. I'm not super familiar with Attack on Titan, so I'm not sure what exact scene you are talking about, but I think that should give you a general idea on my stance.

Thanks for letting me ramble by the way lol.

To be fair, I had rather in mind American conservatives rather than anyone here, and you are not American. However, when water scarcity issues become global, there will inevitably be wars everywhere, so failing to tackle this issue results de facto in a pro-war position.


Good one! Except that people are not bleeding fast enough (metaphor) to realise how dire the situation is.


I am bemused to see how badly you have misread my reply above. "It is clear that we need to completely change the fabrics of society if we want to tackle climate warming. And no, it should not be a disaster to stop using the plane to go to holidays and get rid of useless jobs that create artificial wealth but real pollution."

I was not thinking about meeting with one's family or seeking new opportunities abroad (I have done that myself a few times) but mass tourism, that results in a lot of pollution and destruction of the nature surrounding touristic spots. At this point, I believe that you do not want to try changing anything. By the way, things like carbon taxes that @deg mentioned are technocratic tools that blend perfectly well in the existing structures of society, and as such, are worthless. I am also against blaming individuals who take the plane instead of the train because it is cheaper (say), what is needed is a complete shift in the way societies are organised and cities are built (forcing people to have a car, for example). I am not asking that people go back to ride horses (though it would be lovely to see).

Anyway, a philosophical thread that has derailed into a debate on Covid and global warming—and even triggered some mind-numbing exchanges between "fallacists"—is not worth saving...

Basically, freedom understood as illusive concept, since no one is truly free, just has different types of shackles.


The quote from the clip I posted earlier is indeed a thought provoking one, no doubts about that. Although I disagree with the idea of "freedom being illusive", or with adding too much different ideas to it (are drug addicts free, or slaves to their addiction? are devoted fans free, or are they binded by their devoted approach? etc.). While the world is complex on its own, some constructs are better if put into binary boundaries. Dychotomy of freedom-slavery is one of them. A slave can't be someone who is also a free person, and a free person can't be a slave by definition. Slaves are held back by the others, limited by them, making most of their free will (no matter if we are talking about psychology and voluntary or involuntary point of view, or not) disappear for the sake of the third party, while free people are... free to live in a way they want to, without transfering their free will to anyone (at least not the majority of it; I don't believe in absolute freedom or absolute slavery existing in reality, since they are more like theoretical models), doing what they can do with tools and opportunities they are given, limited mostly by human decency and other people's right to freedom. I see your way of defining "freedom" and "slavery" is quite similar. Unless I misunderstood it, haha.

You're welcome. ;p