I have a pretty good idea: can you guess what it is?
What can make businesses and consumers take climate change seriously?
The Biden Administration has identified addressing climate change – specifically, global warming – as one of its top priorities. Indeed, they are incorporating climate change into both their foreign and economic policies.
Accepting global warming and its impacts as an issue still leaves the question of how to deal with it. Of course, a simple answer is for businesses and consumers to change behaviors and purchases in order to reduce the rise in global temperatures.
But again, we’re left with the question of how – what would motivate businesses and consumers to do this?
One answer is concern for the planet. We can voluntarily alter our behavior and change the products and services we use in order to reduce environmental damage. Many people willingly pay more to drive a hybrid or all-electric vehicle so as to curtail carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
I accept global warming. I just say that the majority is natural causation. So, why would I do anything? The article from WRAL then gets into the “top down approach”, otherwise known as “Government telling you what to do, taking your money, limiting your freedom, choice, and liberty.” Then we get
These concerns have led to an alternative approach to curtailing global warming – the “bottom-up†approach. This approach begins with the premise that people don’t purposely engage in behavior that harms the environment.
Instead, their environmental harm is an unfortunate by-product of behavior that benefits them. For example, a person may charge their tech products with electricity that is generated by high CO2-emitting coal. This is not because they hate the environment. Instead, they are either unaware their electricity is generated from coal, or they have no alternative. (snip)
For decades, many economists have proposed a simple solution to this situation. Levy a fee on the pollution-creating behavior (using electricity generated from coal, driving a gasoline-powered vehicle, plus many others), with the fee approaching the environmental damage done by the behavior.
Um, that sure seems like a top down approach, since it would be Government implementing these carbon tax schemes (at least call them what they are, WRAL)
There is a possible solution. It’s called a refundable pollution fee. The fee will still be applied and collected. But it will also be refunded to those paying it, but on some basis other than the amount paid. One suggestion is to refund an equal amount to everyone paying the fee.
This is just a rewriting of the carbon dividend scheme, trying to make it palatable. The thing is, this is not voluntary in the least, and you won’t be getting all the money back. And the intent is to make people thank government for giving them some of the money back that was forcibly taken to cover the artificial increase in the cost of living.
You want to convince me? Practice what you preach. Start with WRAL giving up their use of fossil fueled vehicles, including helicopters, to gather the news. Stop using fossil fueled vehicles to deliver newspapers. Stop making newspapers, which kill trees. Run the WRAL headquarters only with renewables. At the end of the day, Warmists want to force Other People to take the climate crisis scam seriously via Government dictates.
