how would you describe your views

In representative democracies with parliamentary systems no government can execute policies which fly in the face of the will of the electorate.This system of checks and balances ensures that extreme policies are avoided, possibly with some undesirable consequences, but the economy sticks to a sensible middle course over time. Thus, the power of extreme views on the right or left to achieve their objectives is hampered by the necessity to deliver practical policies which will continue to have the broad support of the electorate

im not liberal as in a democrat- but i do believe if we are not more progressive thats a problem because the world is far from utopia.

@FC-in-the-UK

You raise good points, and this is where things get murky.

Most liberal or neoliberal economists overwhelmingly support a carbon tax. The only real opposition are from those who think setting the tax to be too difficult. Price sensitivity is definitely complex, and I'm not familiar with the modeling but I do trust that the problem isn't even unique. We saw something similar during the oil embargo of the 1970s.

Without a carbon tax, however, the only way to meet those goals is through cap and trade which has a higher administrative burden and is subject to distortionary pressures which rewards lobbying and rent-seeking over efficiencies. The upside is that we'd have certainty over emissions provided the system is airtight.

If someone is against both schemes, then chances are they're a climate change denier. I can't think of a third plausible way to reduce emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Politically circumpolar in Euclidean space.
Politically hyperbolic quaternions in non Euclidean space.

Very awful because my neighbours pine tree grows right in front of the window

@Tae7 said in #41:

In representative democracies with parliamentary systems no government can execute policies which fly in the face of the will of the electorate.This system of checks and balances ensures that extreme policies are avoided, possibly with some undesirable consequences, but the economy sticks to a sensible middle course over time. Thus, the power of extreme views on the right or left to achieve their objectives is hampered by the necessity to deliver practical policies which will continue to have the broad support of the electorate
That's a very naive view in my opinion. First of all, it's sad but in any election charism plays an important role, maybe more important that the candidates programme. So the programme of the elected majority doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people. Next, elected people can't "execute policies which fly in the face of the will of the electorate" as you said, but they definitely can (and do) execute policies that are not what they were elected for and that, if the people were concerted about, wouldn't gain popular approbation.

The issue in my opinion is going to poll every so often to elect a few representatives, and then delegating decision making to these representatives until the next election. I think every citizen should be involved in every important decision.

I know that when saying that the immediate objection is "look what happens with referendum: Brexit!". But that's completely different because in the case of the Brexit referendum, people that were not necessarily used to participative citizenship were given a one-off opportunity to express themselves, and they expressed anger and frustration.

I think that maybe if people were actually given the chance to participate to the political life of their country, this anger and frustration would not have have formed and grown. Plus, people would maybe be more mature citizens if they need to think of every important decision rather than delegating it.

@chummer said in #43:

If someone is against both schemes, then chances are they're a climate change denier. I can't think of a third plausible way to reduce emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Not necessarily. They could just not care. "Après moi le déluge!". I am confident most businessmen believe in climate change, and yet they keep investing in polluting technologies, because it makes money. I don't see why things would be different for political leaders.

Also I think I can see a third way: you decree now that by 2040 it will be illegal to produce any vehicle (car, airplanes,...) that produce greenhouse gases. This will force the industry to invest in more ecological technologies. On the other hand, 2040 is far enough so that they have time to come up with something. Of course, this is just a rough idea and it could be improved in many ways (for instance progressive limitation of the number or the type of new polluting vehicle produced every year, tax on their production that starts slowly and increase every year...).

@mAHiTh1708 said in #1:

conservative,radical,communist,liberal??
No one.

@Tae7 said in #37:

the Thatcher government’s actions were very necessary
There was no alternative?

@FC-in-the-UK

The problem isn't liberal economists. Buckley, Milton Friedman, and other liberal economists have long championed taxing pollution.

The problem is voters who are against them.

https://www.carbontax.org/economists/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/05/23/the-world-urgently-needs-to-expand-its-use-of-carbon-prices