Ultra marathons are an entirely different sport from the 10k, and even marathons. Obviously training matters, but we also don’t have to pretend all humans are identical and only training and grit separate them.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.

What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/george-p-shultz/

There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.

As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.

Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).

Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.

You can’t just call any market based solution “Reaganomics”, but ok. It’s logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren’t actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven’t done it, I must conclude you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I’m not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.

I’m really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can’t actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).

Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn’t even make sense - you’re saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we’d have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It’s not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn’t even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn’t to say it’s politically feasible, but you haven’t offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone’s behavior by pricing in externalities. It’s very much viable and equitable, and if you think it’s somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you’re simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let’s use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that’s not where I’ll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

How, and be specific here, do you think OP should publish their hundreds of useful comments out of thousands over the past decade plus on Reddit? There is no easy way to move entire threads with context and answers. So your proposal, which sounds reasonable enough, isn’t really viable. OP will continue to provide answers here and wherever they choose. If you’re upset, blame Reddit, not OP.

This is both very likely true while also being the peak male Lemmy user fantasy that will confuse future alien archaeologists the most. Thanks for sharing!

This is a hairbrained idea. Nobody is seriously considering building massive wooden structures over entire home just for shade. Just focus on cool roofs, solar panels, trees, and usual weatherization.

Classic, of course you follow with whattaboutism. Like I said, we’ve seen the Russian talking point already. Next.

Also the US isn’t single handedly supporting Ukraine. You need to dramatically increase your whattaboutism to cover the other 50 or so countries.

No amount of nuance will make your core position tenable to those that think Ukraine deserves outside (e.g. NATO) support to protect them from the Russian invaders. You simply don’t think Ukraine deserves support, condemning them to genocide. Everything else you said is weird posturing to try and disguise your actual point. It’s not our first rodeo, we can all see right through this.

Your entire rant boils down to “I disagree with Russia’s invasion, but since they did it anyway they should have no consequences, even when they commit genocide”. A conversation isn’t required to counter this dogshit position.