- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.
The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.
Why does it have to be either or? I’m saying that changes have to be made. But, why not come up with a better plan that doesn’t cause more economic hardship for the people.
Having a better tomorrow is no good if our kids can’t afford to live in it. There has to be a better way than passing restrictions that just pass the buck on to the citizens.
Most of what we buy is artificially underpriced. This is in part because of government subsidies coming from our taxes. The other part, is significant exploitation of people out of your sight and mind.
When our lifestyle is priced at what it is due due human exploitation and suffering you have too options: exploit even harder to reduce prices or start paying a humane price for things. We’ve got it good in the West.
We have it good in the west unless you don’t. I was a homeless heroin addict for over a decade. As someone that has spent time in Nepal. I can honestly say that myself and many just like me had it worse than most of the people living in one of the poorest countries in the world. Hell, one of my friends and his wife in the US got scurvy due to food insecurity.
It’s not as good here as people think.