SmuckersMarionBerry
Highest Rated Comments
SmuckersMarionBerry5 karma
She has no idea what capitalism means. Her problem is with negative externalities which can be addressed without attacking capitalism.
SmuckersMarionBerry4 karma
How will UBI differ between parents and the childless? For the childless certainly we want spartan living to incentivise work. But for parents, child welfare may demand more generousity. Will the UBI allow them to be fulltime caretakers. Programs like the EITC demand parents work to receive the subsidy and that might strain single parents.
How do you balance the needs of the children, sorting parents who should or shouldn't work, and keep the program "fair" for the childless?
SmuckersMarionBerry3 karma
But we should severely restrict economic activity and decrease human welfare because the smartest guys in climate science tell us so. Got it. One smart group fallible, other smart group infallible. Makes total sense.
SmuckersMarionBerry2 karma
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html
Even a few % gains from the 767 to the 787 don't make air travel sustainable. Two round trips annually will double your carbon footprint. It's orders of magnitude worse than just about anything else you do.
For her to fly around to all these stops for her book tour (http://www.naomiklein.org/tour-dates-2014) is cartoonishly hypocritical of her.
SmuckersMarionBerry5 karma
How many times do you fly a year? What is your carbon footprint? Do you think doing a book tour is setting the right example?
Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel (NYT)
View HistoryShare Link