pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 18 Oct \ on: Frequent flyer tax would punish the rich to tune of €64bn per year news
I think the rich would suddenly find an interest in sea cruises! Or maybe even taking a train (private car) to a hiking venue and enjoy it. Aren’t there myriad ways to dodge a tax like this? Don’t they all have tax advisors?
write
preview
this territory is moderated
140 sats \ 5 replies \ @Murch 18 Oct
Reducing flights aligns with the started goal of reducing emissions
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 19 Oct
*stated
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Oct
Thanks!
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 18 Oct
Why should we be reducing emissions, especially carbon dioxide? Why not completely eliminate emissions of Dihydrogen monoxide, instead?
reply
60 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 19 Oct
Because greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change. Not sure what you mean with your question about water emissions.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Oct
Water is a much higher percentage of the atmosphere than carbon dioxide and it is even more of a greenhouse gas. One other point, we are at die-off low levels of carbon dioxide, where all the plants and plankton will just DIE, if we keep up with this insanity about carbon dioxide. One further point, with China ramping up its coal usage (they are already using over 50% of the worlds coal supply) what is the efficacy of reducing our minuscule carbon dioxide usage?
reply