Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakmelk
If nobody is pro-pollution it doesn't have to be free because it means we're all anti-pollution. The point is it should probably be at least somewhat economic which is hard because of the science-policy barrier we have to overcome.
The first step in conflict resolution is to identify the real problem. Oftentimes that takes a bit of digging. Some are 100% convinced the climatologists are wrong but they’re probably a small minority. Most would at least give them a non-zero chance of being right. So most people aren’t wholly opposed to the science even though they might think it’s way more likely to be wrong than right. Then when evaluating a proposal they, like everyone else, employ a cost/benefit heuristic: if they conclude the cost is zero and there’s a potential reward, they take the freeroll.
Quick search (not vouching for; just using as an example):
FIGURE 5: US GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AFTER 10 YEARS OF A CARBON TAX
Assuming that can be substantiated, best case scenario is they saved the planet; worse is they cleaned up the planet. So what possible reason could someone give for opposing a carbon tax?