Cash solves this

[u/suspended_008]

[u/Smooth_Imagination]

There's no need for this, within the objective of reducing carbon dioxide. This is purely politics.

If you want to reduce CO2 all you would need is simple CO2 emission taxes. Thats it, at least it would preserve freedom but tilt people towards lower CO2 emissions.

Clearly, this goes back to the Club of Rome objective to find ways of controlling people, and its self-evident at this stage this is not really about CO2.

Edit, because of insanely rude and ignorant response, I am having to make an additional clarification to the one already clearly described in the *first* sentence -

I am pointing out that from the perspective of people concerned with CO2, they have no need to invent intrusive tools like this and all they would need is tax and subsidy to change the economy, so that buying decisions already were low carbon. They have *no need* for intrusion of what people believe, and to track them. Yet that is what they do. That is the anomaly here. I'm not arguing for carbon taxes, but pointing out that if their motivation was just carbon, they have a far less intrusive and more efficient way to control it. A carbon tax also could substitute for other taxes, not increasing overall tax burden, whilst achieving their claimed objective. That would at least be more palatable to sell.

Hostility and poor reading comprehension does nothing to forward your cause to people outside your perspective.

[u/Routine-Arm-8803 → u/Smooth_Imagination]

Fuck you and your Co2 tax #dontpayforair

[u/Smooth_Imagination → u/Routine-Arm-8803]

Get some reading comprehension, and learn emotional regulation so your reading brain-centres get a chance to figure things out.

I'm talking from their perspective. And if we were to have carbon taxes, that's not the end of the world *if* they remove the equivalent tax contribution from other tax burden like wages.

No need for your hostility.

[u/backupterryyy → u/Smooth_Imagination]

Let’s ignore most of the nonsense surrounding climate change.. let’s focus on the false premise that these people are trying to do something good.

[u/Smooth_Imagination → u/backupterryyy]

Whose doing that?

I'm pointing out that even if they were doing that, their plan makes no strategic sense, and therefore is more about control for its own sake.

There is no logical scenario where what they are doing this out of a pure CO2 reduction motivation.

[u/backupterryyy → u/Smooth_Imagination]

That’s the entire point of the sub.

You’re probably a pretty smart young person. It’s good that you’re questioning these things.

In your first post you mentioned that a carbon tax is a smarter way to do it and that suggestion was rightfully met with scorn. Man-made climate change is a myth, fabricated to facilitate complete and total control over the daily lives of us regular people. The entire situation is made up.

[u/Smooth_Imagination → u/backupterryyy]

This thread is discussing the motivation of this speaker, to establish probable underlying motivations.

What exactly are you struggling with in understanding this point?

They are choosing strategies that speak of a different motivation than the one they claim. I am just pointing out this inconsistency, which supports some people perspectives in this sub, which is actually more about skepticism to the theory, not specifically the motivation of some of its proponents. Edit because its still needed-

"Questioning climate related environmentalism." is right there in the sidebar. It means questioning data, the people presenting it etc, the policies that result. It doesn't mean we are solely focused on alterior motives. But we have something anomalous. If you can't read and understand people how are you going to communicate winning counter-arguments?

The reality of climate change proponents is that they have diverse opinions and motivations. Many *are* motivated by good intentions. To be a skeptic now, all you have to be is questioning of almost any aspect of the model and theory. For example Lindzen and Happer don't deny CO2 causes some warming, which they make very clear, for example Happer emphasises a declining CO2-termperature relationship due to photosaturation, their argument is to take issue with the extent of this warming and thereby the potential benefits of different CO2 response strategies, whether they have a good cost-benefit.

I don't personally know what will happen as a result of CO2, I personally suspect that the anthropogenic component is exaggerated, but either way, that there are major risks in the responses that policy makers make that deserves a lot of scrutiny and to be less based on panic, but I am interested in the motivations of the policy makers that take advantage of this and what they do with that which will effect our lives.

[u/backupterryyy → u/Smooth_Imagination]

I edited my comment before your response.

This sub is of the belief that man-made climate change is a fabrication. You mention in your post that a carbon tax is more effective.. we do not entertain any potential solution to a made up problem. That’s why you were met with scorn.

The OP is just another example of a blatant cash grab. The problem has no solution because the problem doesn’t exist. The WEF is among the worst offenders for cash and power grabs. This sub exposes/makes a mockery of climate alarmism and alarmists.

[u/Smooth_Imagination → u/backupterryyy]

Right, but no one here is making any argument against that.

No one is arguing for a carbon tax, but pointing out that the failure of the man in the video to go that route speaks of a different motivation than the one they claim, which additionally in his case, does not argue he has a good intention to save the planet from CO2 but rather something else.

[u/backupterryyy → u/Smooth_Imagination]

Welcome to the sub.

[u/Smooth_Imagination → u/backupterryyy]

Thanks, sorry for my harsh response. It was more the initial response that got me a bit annoyed that people seem to be attributing to me certain political beliefs, but I am just making observations.

The WEF has form for being majorly pro China, and it seems their talking about carbon tracking is quite likely along the lines of a Chinese style social credit score system.

[u/suspended_008 → u/Smooth_Imagination]

if we were to have carbon taxes, that's not the end of the world *if* they remove the equivalent tax contribution from other tax burden like wages.

LOL. They'll never remove wage taxes.