🇨🇦 tunetardis

The carbon tax was revenue neutral. It came back to you in the form of rebates. If you were an average Joe and did absolutely nothing in response to it, you’d still break even.

But if you did do something to lower your personal carbon footprint, you’d get ahead. You’d be getting back more than you were paying. And the higher the tax went, the bigger the payout would become. That was the point of it. It was an incentive to lower your taxes and emissions at the same time.

But all people with half a brain could hear was TAX TAX TAX. And so here we are…

I’ve been thinking of late that his tweets look AI generated. You just enter something like: take today’s news from a reputable source, invert all the facts, add lots of hyperbole, and capitalize words for emphasis.

Wait, they’re not all made in China? Last time we were ordering some for a development board at work, we had to source them from China, though that was admittedly a few years back.

When I first started taking climatology back in the day, I thought it a bit paradoxical that profs kept going on about how global warming would lead to more extreme weather when, on a first principles basis at least, I would’ve thought it should lessen weather variability. Anthropogenic warming is an insulating effect, and that should tend to even out conditions across the planet, just as insulating your home should reduce drafts and what not.

I guess my problem was that I had it in my head that greater variability = more chance to hit extremes, and we were going the other way. But the way things are playing out, it’s less variability that is giving us what we view as aberrant weather. That heat dome that never leaves or that storm system that parks itself over your head for days on end. We get too much of one thing because the weather systems are actually becoming less chaotic and getting stuck in holding patterns for longer than is healthy.