> I agree with you. We cant ask to return to middle ages.
True. So, maybe high-speed trains are not the solution, yet. It might be that they're missing a technological pinch, yet. In the same way battery technology was a pinch to electrical cars (which are around at least as long as fossil burning cars, just not usable, because... battery...).
As long as a solution is dependent on politics or taxation, it is a sign that there is still some pinch to tweak, some idea to discover or some detail to improve.
> fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price.
Partly agreed. It's difficult to find a price. What does the emission of one metric ton of CO2 cost? The sum of the actuarial costs of damages to property attributed to climate change divided by the total number of tonnes produced? Is it the sum of the costs of the effort to save such tonne?
Then, is a tonne a tonne? What if you emit CO2 to produce a material which reduces the damages to houses from thunderstorms? Will you get credited the part which led to lower costs of damages?
And even, if you found the right price. Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system?
> Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system?
Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes. Taxation, then democratically elected representatives get to decide what to spend the money on, even if I personally dont agree.
> Yes to all of those. If you said "to pay Microsoft licenses" I qould squirm and say yes.
Then the carbon tax is -- as I said -- just a tax like every other tax: Putting someone's money in someone else's pocket. How would that help the climate then?
True. So, maybe high-speed trains are not the solution, yet. It might be that they're missing a technological pinch, yet. In the same way battery technology was a pinch to electrical cars (which are around at least as long as fossil burning cars, just not usable, because... battery...).
As long as a solution is dependent on politics or taxation, it is a sign that there is still some pinch to tweak, some idea to discover or some detail to improve.
> fossil-burning-car travel compared to train travel is not reflected on the price.
Partly agreed. It's difficult to find a price. What does the emission of one metric ton of CO2 cost? The sum of the actuarial costs of damages to property attributed to climate change divided by the total number of tonnes produced? Is it the sum of the costs of the effort to save such tonne?
Then, is a tonne a tonne? What if you emit CO2 to produce a material which reduces the damages to houses from thunderstorms? Will you get credited the part which led to lower costs of damages?
And even, if you found the right price. Who is the beneficiary whom this price is paid to? Is it the people? So, what if democracy decides to use (a chunk of?) these taxes to rise pensions? Or to support young families? Or to rescue people from drowning in the Mediterranean on their escape from violations of their human rights? Or to improve the healthcare system?
There is no such thing as earmarked taxes.