how would you describe your views

You have a point. In the case of climate change, I feel like unless it starts affecting everyone’s day to day lives, most people aren’t going to take action. People judge everything based on their own circumstances. They may read about troubles elsewhere but until it hits them, they are just going to turn a blind eye to it which is pretty selfish...

@Tae7 said in #58:

You begin by saying that voters can be led astray by matters not strictly related to a candidate’s party’s policies. In other words. Voters are so defective in judgement that they cannot be trusted to act in their own interests. What condescension!
That's not condescention. That's a fact and I mean everyone is aware of it. That's just being realistic. A non-charismatic candidate doesn't stand a chance. Now that doesn't mean voters are defective in judgement. Only that human psychology have flaws, that are exploited by marketing and advertisement people, and by politics as well. The current format of most elections is designated so that people focus on the personality of the leader rather than on his ideas.
Any party in power has to stick broadly to the schedule contained in their manifesto or they will be held to account. Despite your apparent distrust, the public are not stupid and allow for some flexibility in action when the circumstances change (i.e covid)
It's a well known fact that no candidate fulfills their electoral promises.
You say that “we should go to poll every so often”. This is precisely what we do now!
No, you apparently misunderstood my point. I am saying that going to poll every two or four years and then delegating all decisions to the elected leaders is not sufficient.
Later you go on to say that every citizen should be involved in every important decision. Who decides which decision occupies that category? Are you advocating plebiscites/referendums for these particular cases? That is saying goodbye to parliamentary democracy as the alternatives are incompatible.
I didn't go into the specifics purposefully. If you want to go into the specifics, you end up writing a book or a manifesto. Plebiscite/ referendum are one possibility, not necessarily the only one. Your last sentence is factually wrong as Switzerland has a system of plebiscite/ referendum and a parliamentary democracy. That being said, parliamentary democracy is not the only possible kind of democracy, and I am in favour of more direct and participative democracy.
“The will of the people” is a phrase heavy with historical luggage. Commonly used by ruthless demagogues as a justification for the worst excesses of human behaviour in the pursuit of their ambitions for power and control over their wretched followers.
"The will of the people" is also the philosophical justification of democracy. Now I never said or intended to say that "the people" is one homogenous entity with a well-defined will (which is I suspect what you perceived as demagogic).
I concede that our system of government has many faults and is frustrating in many ways. The problem is all the other suggested alternatives would make things worse.
How can you be so sure? Did you try them? The argument "suggested alternative would make things worse" has always used by conservatives. Including advocates of absolute monarchy against democracy.

@chummer said in #60:

Macron ran as an environmentalist,
No he didn't.

I don't have a definitive opinion about carbon tax in general. But I do believe carbon tax as implemented by Macron was bad and inefficient. Carbon tax should be used as an incentive to industries to develop more ecological technologies, not to penalise the user that doesn't have other possibilities.

As I said in my other post, some people, especially within the low incomes, are dependent on their car for work. They don't have any other choice. So whether you put a tax of 1 cent per liter, 10 cent per liter or 1 dollar per liter of gas, they will still take their car. Even at 10 dollar per liter it would still be less costly in the short term than buying an electrical car. And even if electrical cars would be more profitable in the long run, these people don't necessarily have savings to buy it.
So by doing this, you only force them to spend more on their necessary travels. And potentially to cut on other expenses related to entertainment and wellbeing.
On the other hand, the middle-upper class like their holidays and they probably won't give it up just because oil is a bit more expensive (price of oil constantly increased over the years, we didn't see any reduction of usage of car for holiday or for any other purpose).

So the carbon tax as it was implemented by Macron would affect disproportionately the poor and lead to increase in social inequalities, and, according to me, it wouldn't result in reducion of carbon emissions.

Then again, it's easy to blame the voters for wanting only "painless solutions" when, on the other hand, industries that pollute and/ or that could make a difference (such as car manufacturers) make billions. Industries are the actors that have the potential to make a difference. They should be the one incitated to do so.

@Tae7 said in #61:

People judge everything based on their own circumstances. They may read about troubles elsewhere but until it hits them, they are just going to turn a blind eye to it which is pretty selfish...
How condescending!

@FC-in-the-UK

The whole point of a carbon tax is to raise the price of whoever is polluting so the cost reflects the true cost.

Yes, the cost will impact people who use their cars. It's supposed to. It's supposed to encourage people to carpool. To use public transportation. To drive less. Maybe they won't drive to the beach on holiday, but that's a good thing. It also creates incentive to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.

Industries would also be subject to carbon tax. Just as auto users would have incentive to change their behaviors, so too would industries. The dirtier the industry, the harder hit they'll be - which is exactly the intent. Make it more expensive to pollute, and people and companies will necessarily pollute less.

I read in your other post that companies should be forced to create vehicles produce no greenhouse gases. That's preposterous - first of all, it's not credible. You would have a number of auto manufacturers who would simply close their doors in 2039. You'd have a very small supply of vehicles, but the same demand - in that scenario, the poor get screwed even more. Basic supply and demand shows the prices would be astronomical.

Secondly, electric vehicles are extremely bad for the environment to produce; the batteries in particular are harmful. And if those batteries are charged via coal power plant, then zero emission vehicles aren't that attractive. How do you limit the greenhouse gases from those industries? We circle right back again to a carbon tax.

@chummer said in #65:

Make it more expensive to pollute, and people and companies will necessarily pollute less.
Nope. They will still pollute if what you call the 'true cost' is still cheaper (or more convenient) than not polluting.

I don't think paying the 'true cost' can sove the problem. When you make billions, paying 1% more leaves you with billions. When you earn miminum wage, paying 1% more can mean how many meals you eat per day. Yet when you make billions you are more likely to be in a position where you can actually make a difference.

I also adressed your point about driving to the beach for holiday (upper middle class would still do it) and buying a more fuel efficient car (even if it's more profitable in the long run, you need savings for that).

Plus, when Hummer sells me a big 4WD and Shell sells me oil to put in it, who should pay the 'true cost'? Hummer and Shell, or me?

I read in your other post that companies should be forced to create vehicles produce no greenhouse gases. That's preposterous - first of all, it's not credible. You would have a number of auto manufacturers who would simply close their doors in 2039.
I thought of that. That's why I specified it was a rough idea and it could be improved with more progressive measures to make sure that as we approach 2040, industies are indeed transitionning in the right direction, and thus avoiding the massive breakdown you describe.
Secondly, electric vehicles are extremely bad for the environment to produce; the batteries in particular are harmful. And if those batteries are charged via coal power plant, then zero emission vehicles aren't that attractive. How do you limit the greenhouse gases from those industries? We circle right back again to a carbon tax.
I know they are bad for the environment. However at the moment the emergency is to reduce greenhouse gasses. Plus, when we will (soon) be out of oil, we'll have to do without it. If by 2040 enough power plant have also transitionned away from greenhouse gas, then the solution I described would lead to effective reduction of greengas house emissions. To fight climate change, we can't focus on one sector (like automobiles for instance). What I think we need is a green New Deal that would transform every aspect of the industry.

Imagine if an economist would propose a 'homicide tax' on firearms so that when you buy arms and ammunitions you pay the 'true cost' for it.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #67:

Imagine if an economist would propose a 'homicide tax' on firearms so that when you buy arms and ammunitions you pay the 'true cost' for it.

Not every gun and bullet is used in homicide, nor is killing your neighbor impacting everyone across the globe. Every kilometer driven does impact everyone else.

True. Yet, on average, every buyer would pay the 'right cost'. Thus according to the idea that you can assign a cost to everything, gun trade would still be beneficial for society (since the 'homicide tax' would repay for the nefast consequences of guns).

@En_Passant234 said in #57:

@chronicalien

The same US which was against us started building good relations with us...

Us accepted you as a dominant player and engaged in making good relations (smells selfish) . Do you know who stopped your country from making nuclear arms and put sanctions on you in 1998 when you outwittedly succesfully tested in Pokhran . On the other hand it was communist USSR who sold you every latest weapons you wanted .
Time and Again Us has cheated you , like every democracy . You helped Eu in Crisis but when you were struggling with your second wave ..." Germany a now democracy in a meeting of EU said that it is now tough for India to export us medicines at low cost . Let's search for someone else . "

Again here you failed to explain why no country ever developed with democracy . China who started with you is no.1 in almost every aspect . If not 1 then 2 and 3 atmost . Because developing and democracy don't go hand in hand .
china is capitalist for your kind information