Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-should-pay-their-fair-share dept.

On Saturday, November 16th, around 282,000 people blocked roads and highways all over France. The protesters, nicknamed the gillets jaunes after the yellow warning vests they wore, had organized through Facebook. Their beef: the increase in environmental taxes on gasoline, on top of a number of other tax increases.

We don't disagree with having to pay more to help act for the environment and fight climate change, was the general opinion, but why should it be only the little folks who have to pay while the elite can easily grin and bear it -- why not tax also all that heavy fuel burned by aeroplanes and tanker ships?

The action, which persisted throughout the day, resulted in over 100 wounded and one tragic death when a mother driving her child to hospital panicked.

The protesters do have a point. While media and politics rightly, if very, very much belatedly, are warning about climate change, the alternatives proposed clearly are not to be taken seriously.

The hard choices we need to face apparently come down to cities investing in smart cameras to fine visitors based on production year and type of their automobile. Public transport investing will come, but not to the countryside where car/ride sharing, Uber and similar services simply are not viable; Tesla and relatives are on another price planet for ordinary people.

As to the EU's emission trading system (ETS) that should drive industry to climate change action: news broke on the same day as the gillets jaunes actions that Britain -- on the verge of leaving the EU -- is one of the biggest net exporters of such credits: Britain had 900 million of these credits too much, for the years 2013-2015 alone.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 19 2018, @12:38AM (4 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Monday November 19 2018, @12:38AM (#763692) Journal

    Because markets only work properly when both sides are free to walk away.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 19 2018, @02:35AM (3 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 19 2018, @02:35AM (#763741) Homepage Journal

    You think you're not? Interesting.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Monday November 19 2018, @05:49AM (2 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Monday November 19 2018, @05:49AM (#763801) Journal

      So you figure if people have no bread they should just eat cake?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 21 2018, @10:54AM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 21 2018, @10:54AM (#764648) Homepage Journal

        No, I figure there is more than one potential employer in the area. Which is going to be true for pretty much anywhere that the state doesn't own the means of production.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday November 21 2018, @06:18PM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday November 21 2018, @06:18PM (#764859) Journal

          And how would that constitute walking away from an unfavorable market?

          Unemployment would need to be about zero for the employment market to work properly. Since that doesn't happen, it doesn't work. Basic income would allow people to leave the market for a while until it became more favorable.