hey. the republicans would pay good money for it.
deathtokoalas
+jessica i've been waiting for years for the discourse to change to language that suggests that the problem is being taken more seriously, and if anything the language and consequent ideological approaches have only gotten worse. i actually read one report a little after paris that criticized the agreement for being too reliant on "20th century governing approaches" and not "implementing modern, incentive-based policies".
all that this language broadcasts is that the issue isn't actually being taken seriously - still.
i think maybe some of it might have to do with the way that wealthy people interact with the environment. it's seen as something in the realm of philanthropy. politicians treat it all as legacy issues. the result is that the upper class has this warped perspective - making space for a wetland is "giving something back", merely an act of unprovoked kindness, whereas destroying a wetland is just doing business. there's no sense of duty - either legally or morally.
from this warped concept, we get the idea of levying fines to address climate change. we give out fines for breaking rules that have few externalities, or largely meaningless ones. if you park your car on the side of the road, or cross the street away from the lights - that's a fine. and, if you dump acid into the river then that's a fine, too - because not doing so would be an act of kindness, of giving back.
we're never getting anywhere with this until we change our attitude. dumping acid into the river is a crime and should land you in jail. that's right. jail. down the river. cuffs.
you think that's too much? then you're not taking the problem seriously.
stop. shut up. you really aren't.