> The actual cost has to price in the impact of using it.
Is there real evidence the collected tax revenue is actually offsetting carbon emissions?
There's a lot of fraud in carbon credit systems - where often the sole benefit is feeling and/or looking good.
Is this self-imposed tax actually having a real result - or is it just artificially increasing the price of energy? If the latter, then it's not really fair to claim it's the actual cost.
.. you are commenting on an article about how non-carbon-emitting energy options are beating out polluting alternatives, aided by exactly these taxes, so obviously yes, they are working exactly as intended: price signals for the market to get carbon out of the energy system
The purpose of the tax is not to raise money to plant trees, it’s to raise the cost of emissions so that markets
move away from them
TFA's claim is offshore wind prices are 40% cheaper than gas.
The parent comment stated "actual cost has to price in the impact of using it". Most people would agree on this. However, for both claims to be true, the collected tax revenue must be spent offsetting the impact of that gas usage - not simply reducing gas usage (ie. that consumed gas isn't being compensated for).
If the UK government is spending that tax revenue on anything it wants, then it's not the actual cost, is it?
Sorry I don’t follow. Why would the taxes need to be spent offsetting anything? The carbon reduction already happened, because the taxes made this auction choose lower emission alternatives.
If you then also spend the taxes on some form of offsets (if we pretend for the sake of argument that those work) you would have reduced emissions twice. One time seems plenty to say they are doing their job.
`apt-get update` bricked your system multiple times? How, by filling up your disk? That doesn't install or upgrade any software. It just updates the local cache of the registry. I believe you that there was a real problem I'm just confused about how it happened.
I've been unable to login after filling my disk before, I wouldn't call the system bricked because I was able to fix it by mounting the disk on another computer and freeing up space, but I wouldn't quibble over the term either.
It was apt-get upgrade, then. Whichever command updates all packages on the system. I must have misspoke, I don’t use Debian-based systems all that much anymore.
I remember it had a particular fondness for deleting old kernel versions, failing to install the new kernel, and thus bricking the system on boot. Alternatively, uninstalling the entire WM because one package had a conflict.
Weird! Sounds like maybe `apt-get dist-upgrade` or `apt-get full-upgrade`. `upgrade` shouldn't uninstall anything or update your kernel as far as I know. `dist-upgrade` or `full-upgrade` could do either. If your `/boot` partition was exhausted or you lost power in the middle of a kernel upgrade, that could leave the system in a broken state.
At any rate, sorry you had such a frustrating experience.
There is absolutely a point. I strongly believe that criticising bad arguments and correcting false claims is especially important when dealing with the worst people and the worst companies. Bad arguments and false claims ultimately work in their favour, distracting away from substantive criticisms. Don’t hand them that advantage.
This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war.
There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being particularly cryptic, so I can only assume you’re intentionally refusing to engage with it.
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that.
Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it.
Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said:
——————
That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution.
What’s happening, plainly:
1. Projection
They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring).
2. Mind-reading / motive attribution
“It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis.
3. Poisoning the well
By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim.
4. Pathologizing dissent
Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence.
5. Asymmetric skepticism
Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology.
——————
It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
reply