You got a point. However, billionaires are still extremely horrible for the environment. Just owning a private get and regularly using it emits probably more carbon than the average person.

I think that's a really good point to be fair. Would be interested to see what it was on a consumption basis - like other people are pointing out, the lifestyle of the ultra rich is definitely pretty carbon intensive.

It makes some sense to approportion to them the share of the negative externalities of their businesses that matches the share of the revenue they get as profit from those businesses (since the business has to have a higher level of activity to generate profit that it would to merelly break even).

However for the reason you pointed out it doesn't make sense to assigned to them the responsibility for the negative externalities of creating wealth which they did not themselves capture even if they own the businesses that did that wealth creation.

Of course, things can be quite a lot more complex than this - for example, if a billionaire choses to go with a disproportionally more poluting process in their business to get a small increase in profit, doesn't he or she have responsability for that extra polution which goes well beyond merelly the extra profit they got? - but as a rule of thumb it makes sense that people's responsability for the polution in wealth creation activities is proportional to how much of that created wealth ends up in their hands.

Your first point is pretty good.

Although your argument about China is very wrong.

Anyway, here's your shitty paper straw

At this point, it feels less "morally allowed" and more "morally required" that we defend ourselves.

If you cook the rich over a wood burning fire, it would be a net savings in carbon emissions, hypothetically speaking.

Usually but because it's the environment then you would get labeled as a terrorist instead of being able to claim self defense. Sorry it looks like the corporations were more forward thinking and got some laws passed to label anything trying to protect the environment is now eco-terrorism.

Only kinda /s

Here is how ethics works:

• if I push a boulder on you I'm a murderer
• if I push a boulder that squashes you but on the way down the hill it grinds some flour your death is an externality and I am industrious.

Since we are in the latter case, it is not self defense. Too bad, so sad.

Yes.

It's going to take the courts awhile to catch up.

But aren't people carbon based? We should just compost them instead.

15 mile (13 NM) flight from KEDC to AUS

~ 85 gallons (322 liters). 
~ 571 lbs (259 kg) of jet fuel used. 
~ $477 cost of fuel. 
~ 0.8991 tons of CO2 emissions.

15 miles.

Reddit would probably ban me for what I think should happen to him, but thank goodness we are on Lemm.ee and the fediverse doesn’t seem to like him.

How many liters of fuel can be produced by pressing Elon?

Georgism makes most sense when applied to pollution. Determining prices is the only question.

Now if you employ georgism anyway, maybe it would make sense in other contexts, no?

I'm still trying to sell libertarianism to folks in the Interwebs, yah, just like Jehova's witnesses do.

And we are billed unreasonably for using that energy too. My electric has skyrocketed in the last few years. Meanwhile the business customers have stayed relatively the same. Electric companies need to bill businesses way more and give citizens a break.

85°?!?

Look at mister moneypants here with his sauna

... 72f is normal (22c)

We are past that situation where growing populations were the problem, it's the opposite now.

Even %%% India will have shrinking population.

You know they beheaded many more usual folks not careful enough that nobles, right?