Nonetheless, the claim that the carbon tax has reduced emissions by 15% seems predicated on the premise that higher costs reduce consumption and encourage people to change their behavior.
If that's the case, why does it matter if the higher cost comes from Rachel Notley or from sanctions being put on Iranian oil, or from some other reason? Ultimately, the green-people say that higher costs reduce consumption and save the environment. Higher gasoline costs are good. Therefore green-people should be happy if Notley causes gas prices to rise. Andrew Lloyd Weaver should write Notley a thank-you if she reduces gasoline flow to BC, shouldn't he?
-k
I certainly don't propose to speak for "green people" but I think to say they are just happy for higher prices for whatever reason is a completely blind assumption. (of the timg variety) I do think that people will pay a bit extra if the proceeds go towards healthy alternatives and not into OPEC's pockets is acceptable. I guess it depends on how well you can ignore climate science.
Home
Contact
Login
Register