Skip to main content

View Diary: "Winter Deep Freeze Will Cause Breakdown of German Electric Grid" (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Didn't say it was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Matt Z, PatriciaVa
    Just being poor doesn't give anyone a right to pass their costs off onto others.
    Their carbon footprint is less than the affluent. Start there.

    Let me clarify, by regressive taxation, I mean for food and fuel, especially for heating and cooling. Not the sort of goods and/or services that Bangladeshi child labor would be supplying low income American consumers.

    Again, conflation on your part.

    Oh, and how did you get this:

    Of course instituting renewables isn't taxation at all
    from what I said??

    “Fair? Fare is what you pay to ride the bus. That’s the only ‘fair’ I know.” ~ Heylia James, from Weeds - 1st season

    by ozsea1 on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:46:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Starting with the comment you supported (0+ / 0-)

      That opposes and "regressive taxation" by increasing energy costs. In the context of a diary supporting renewable (which is critical) we have a comment opposing the idea based on the notion that if it costs poor people more then it's a non starter, which you said was a good point.

      There are three key counter points to make: first the original comment equates raising energy prices as a result of forcing externalities to a tax. By suggesting that such an internalization is bad the commenter implicitly suggests that it is ok for poor people to externalize their costs (by buying cheap coal power). Second, given the massive environmental effects on others I made the analogy (not saying that child slave labor supports poor people although you might look at Walmarts practices) that arguing against renewables because poor people might have to pay more is like arguing against child labor laws because it might cost more. In both cases the proponent shows himself willing to accept a serious harm to other because it would cost poor people less money. Thus theyare analogous statements morally. Third, as I will say again that this line of argument is really using one problem to justify the creation of another. The solution here is NoT to advocate for planet killing fuels, but to advocate instead for economic justice and stop using a lack of progress on one to justify a lack of progress on the other. Again to resort to an analogy, it's be like arguing that we shouldn't do anything to raise living standards because that'll just make environmental problems worse. Again both are poor arguments

      •  nice bit of backpedalling (0+ / 0-)

        typical of the Comfortable Class. Fine. Concern noted.

        “Fair? Fare is what you pay to ride the bus. That’s the only ‘fair’ I know.” ~ Heylia James, from Weeds - 1st season

        by ozsea1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 09:42:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

          You managed to stupidly not read what I wrote and went off abOut how we should screw the planet over because it would be to gosh darned hard to say focus on the real issues of economic disparity. Mindless selfishness duly noted. Really you are no different than banks or oil companies

          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

            You managed to take yourself much more seriously than your comment rated. I read it and it's well-crafted but still anti-poor. Surprised you didn't bring us their childred as "externalized costs".

            “Fair? Fare is what you pay to ride the bus. That’s the only ‘fair’ I know.” ~ Heylia James, from Weeds - 1st season

            by ozsea1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 09:53:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It certainly wasn't backpedalling (0+ / 0-)

              The idea that the fact that we have a screwed up economic system is an argument against taking action on climate change is unbelievably wrong headed and short sighted. That's all I've said, and I will continue to shout it from the rooftops. There's nothing "anti-poor" about it, because your original statement isn't anywhere near "pro-poor" It is very pro-corporate oil industry however.

              •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                This is bullshit.

                statement isn't anywhere near "pro-poor" It is very pro-corporate oil industry however.
                Have a day.

                “Fair? Fare is what you pay to ride the bus. That’s the only ‘fair’ I know.” ~ Heylia James, from Weeds - 1st season

                by ozsea1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 10:01:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really (0+ / 0-)

                  if you were concerned about poor people for real, you might give consideration to the genuinely poor who are going to get hammered by this: Namely those in subsaharan Africa or low lying areas of countries like Bangladesh. However, this line of reasoning is perfectly willing to throw all those people under the bus in order to advance an agenda the Koch brothers are busily advancing as well. Coincidence?

    •  These are related issues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, Lawrence

      We should be working toward a world where nobody is poor... or at least there aren't so many poor people.

      One way to do that would be to tax energy use progressively so that those who use the most (the rich with big houses, cars, private jets) pay the most.

      When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace. - Jimi Hendrix

      by CharlieHipHop on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 06:35:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site