• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It sounds like you’re suggesting that because our system of government is complex, increasing the complexity even more is generally a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If that’s what you mean, I disagree with you.

    It also sounds like you’re repeating basic facts about crafting legislation that we all know. I’m not a lawmaker and I’m not trying to write a law here in the comment section, so I don’t particularly care to prepare a several page document. Certainly one could do so if one were so inclined…

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Not everybody knows that. If you do, cool, good to know, and I’m surprised you’re still so certain anyone could write this thing successfully.

      On complexity, that we got off on a bit of a tangent, but I guess what I’m saying is that it’s unavoidable. You said… just a moment, I need to look back and repost because I’m forgetting…

      When you make the system complex and allow people to trade their credits, you’ve just created a system that’s designed to be abused, and of course it will be.

      Right. There’s not more complexity to a carbon tax. In fact, the point of it is that it’s really simple for legislators to implement, for industry to follow and adapt around, and we still have a strong theory that says it should work to reduce emissions, regardless of any (legal) attempts at “abuse”. The way it actually works itself out will be complex, but that’s because our technology and supply chains are intrinsically complex.