zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
Just a contextual note -- one thing Sabine says is: AI won't help because we know the exact solution, we just aren't willing to do it.

Presumably she's referring to her first proposal -- a carbon tax. It's my understanding that there's nearly consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the most efficient solution to global warming, but political consensus that it would never happen when framed as a tax.

If you don't know what a carbon tax is, or why it's orders of magnitude more efficient a solution than "eat less meat" I'd encourage you to look into it a bit. Essentially if you create a system where what is best for the planet is also the cheapest course of action (for individuals and businesses), you no longer have to rely on convincing every single individual to change their morality/beliefs.

>>zug_zu+my2
In order to be politically acceptable, a carbon tax should be phased in gradually and coupled with a reduction in income tax so as to make it revenue neutral. That way it can't be framed as just another government tax grab.

>>nradov+uz2
This is already the case in Canada's carbon tax. The amount of tax you pay is proportional to the amount of fossil fuels you consume. But the amount of refund you receive is equal to the total tax collected divided by the population; you receive the same refund regardless of how much you consume. It is a revenue-neutral scheme.