Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Because people is peoples. Nobody wants to do anything if it inconvenciences. If you ask people "Should we change to renewable energy sources in the country" most people will say "Yes", if you ask them if they'd be willing to give "5$ per month", "50$ per month", "500$ per month", a lot of people will hesitate to even give anything.
At any rate I've only seen you guys cite on and only one case and that's private jets used by government officials and business leaders.
I can sympathize. Its bad optics. It really is. However, if we're going to be objective lilpixie, instead of being ruled by emotions and gut feelings, then its an objective fact that out of the total output of human CO2, those private jets represent a minority. And even if you're against it, the best way to deal with it simply cap and trade. Plenty of conservative thinkers have admitted that this is a rather weak argument against environmentalism. I remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) who runs a Trump supporting podcast, had more than one podcast detailing why this just doesn't work as an argument.
At any rate I've only seen you guys cite on and only one case and that's private jets used by government officials and business leaders.
I can sympathize. Its bad optics. It really is. However, if we're going to be objective lilpixie, instead of being ruled by emotions and gut feelings, then its an objective fact that out of the total output of human CO2, those private jets represent a minority. And even if you're against it, the best way to deal with it simply cap and trade. Plenty of conservative thinkers have admitted that this is a rather weak argument against environmentalism. I remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) who runs a Trump supporting podcast, had more than one podcast detailing why this just doesn't work as an argument.
Comment