I want non polluting transport. Far more than you do, I'm pretty sure. I lived for years in Bucharest, the most polluted and congested city in Europe, with two air purifiers working non stop in my apartment. But I don't see anything productive in your comment. Mostly pettiness.
I'd be kind of on board with the exemption if there was a (high) cost paid for it, and that the cost was used to fund some sort of environmental project, but is that what Italy is actually asking for, or are they simply asking for an exemption, no strings attached?
If it's not pettiness, it's short-sightedness and black-and-white thinking.
asking for the same rules for the rich and the poor is "eat the rich"?
As for why it's harmful - it's hijacking the conversation. Like somebody else said below, we're fighting over 0.1 percent pollution, while ignoring hugely more advantageous moves.
Want examples? Let's talk about taking all combustion cars, old or new, out of the cities. Bam, 10-40% reduction in damage to health. Let's encourage and build infrastructure for bikes and other small e-vehicles. Ocean commercial traffic. Waste burning in unsafe incinerators. Construction-related pollution. Each of those is a double digit share of either health impact or global pollution. But no, let's stop the rich from playing with toys instead.
How/When did wanting equality of outcome become "pettiness"?
Also, how did this get projected and extrapolated to I'm not only petty but now I'm also against effective action like fighting urban sprawl (which is the real reason we need cars in first place).
Also, my fundamental issue is that the rich will dodge all that other stuff you want as well; the way they are already getting the bulk of green incentives and abusing carbon offsets (see, for example [1] and [2])
This is going to be a long and difficult journey with many, many steps. And at each step of the way, people who claim to be allies will be saying "don't be petty" and "this is but a distraction, the real solution is over here"
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-c...
It's ok, I know what you mean :) you're talking about non-corruption, equality in the face of the law/rules and so on. I pretty much agree with it. I also mean what I said about hijacking the conversation - I happen to care very deeply about health-related pollution (less so about carbon), and I really really don't want the discourse led astray.
I think carbon offsets are a fundamentally good idea that probably works. I see this kind of news you linked as proof that it does - in a working system I'd expect occasional abuse. I'd expect to see no abuse only if the system was so inefficient as to not be worse gaming. Is it efficient overall? For this you'd need statistical analysis and lots of data. But I like a framework where everybody can decide how much emiting carbon is worth to them - this way you can easily reach all the low hanging fruits, while still keeping those industries with high value per emission. For example I'd never want a blanket ban or quota to interfere with medical equipament manufacturers or high tech. Having the occasional rich guy buy a ferrari is a very small price. Plus, performance e-cars are already much faster.
Should Italy prefer to reduce their carbon emissions by 0.1% while destroying one of the last few industries they're the best known for, with associated loss of jobs and livelihood for thousand of families? Of course they don't.
Allowing the 0.1% richest people to be above the law, because in the grand scale of things it's insignificant, seems outrageous for the average abiding citizen who have no choice. The rich would then always have an exception for all the sacrifices and cuts society has to do to preserve new generations.
If a law is needed to save humankind, don't make exceptions to it purely based on capital of people, unless it's to help those in disadvantage.
Any calculations to demonstrate that this is indeed the case?