[jopicornell]

That's again an oversimplification. It's not black or white, it's more complex. And that shouldn't be passed onto the general population, but to the companies that have been exploiting the resources as if they were infinite. They have become megamagnates and megacompanies, and now that we ask for solutions, it should not be "ha, ok, pay more".

[monero-xmr]

Someone will have to pay more. No one wants to - no one.

[slopeloaf]

I empathize with this and your earlier obviously inflammatory remarks, but we either pay for adaptation/mitigation now or pay billions if not trillions later for infrastructure repairs, more human lives lost, further extinctions of animal biodiversity, and reduced economic productivity from the loss of arable land.

Taxing large emitters does still past the cost down to the consumer. Someone certainly has to pay eventually. Perhaps youre too cynical to believe humans now are willing to do so. I don’t think youre right, but it’s certainly an opinion those less optimistic share :) and there is plenty of current evidence to bring hopes down.

Alas I’d like to die knowing I tried and cared instead of contributing to the apathy of the situation.

[namaria]

We either pay now to have this civilization last longer or we pay later in terms of the unsustainable systems not being sustained any more.

[milesrout]

It isn't companies that use the world's resources, it is consumers.

[plastic3169]

Consumers can only buy that which has been manufactured. There is customer demand but nobody is forcing anyone to start a company. If you build a factory and release tons of co2 that is the concrete act destroying the planet. Blaming your clients for making you do it seems wrong. Also kicking the can down the road diffuses the responsibility and obfuscates what harm actually was done. Consumers have hard time tracking this stuff down and are amateurs vs. the manufacturers who are the experts in the process and actually can make decisions for the better.