/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10022439
>If you can afford to cut certain taxes or rates in order to fit in carbon tax, you can afford to cut those taxes outright AND not impose carbon tax.
this is absolutely fucking retarded.
"if you can afford to quit your day job to work as a professional musician, you can afford to quit and not work at all"
the point is that the extra revenue from the carbon tax allows the government to reduce the revenue from other taxes without needing to cut services, shifting tax burden away from the general public and onto polluters without increasing or decreasing it. you're just an anti-tax zealot with no idea of how economics or government actually work. stop sucking Grover Norquist's dick.

>They're not at zero. Public pressure forces companies to shill for green approaches, token as they may be.
you have no idea what an externality is.

>Vertical farming is starting to enter the market
like >>10022571 said, very resource-intensive.
>Fish farming is already a thing
aaand it already damages nearby ecosystems because of the increased nutrient density causing microbial blooms.
>Heat waves typically only kill a handful of the very sick or elderly
so it's okay then?

>Remember, the planet has been significantly warmer than this before.
and ecosystems were entirely different then. modern ecosystems are not compatible with Cretaceous conditions.
>even if it didn't happen now, it would happen later
not like this, it wouldn't. even Milankovitch-driven glacial retreat isn't this fast. warming comparable to the current rate is associated with mass extinctions in the fossil record.
>We are simply speeding up the process
that you don't understand that this is a problem shows how ignorant you are

no, not a whit

>>9880676
>>9881008
wrong