It’s not the inconvenience of the measure. If you can’t see the principle at this point, no sense trying to explain it to you.

Sounds like a circular argument. If you can't explain the principle how can you claim it is real? Surely if there is a principle there then you must be able to point it out. Is the principle that the government shouldn't be able to control any products we use because that is arguably a flawed principle.

If I recall correctly, you’re all for the masses paying for climate change taxes. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Incorrect, I never weighed in on the issue of climate change taxes.

Sounds like a circular argument. If you can't explain the principle how can you claim it is real? Surely if there is a principle there then you must be able to point it out. Is the principle that the government shouldn't be able to control any products we use because that is arguably a flawed principle.

Incorrect, I never weighed in on the issue of climate change taxes.

I never said I can’t explain it to you. I said if you can’t see the principle at this point NO SENSE trying to explain it to you.

For the latter, you have this strange sense of trying to make vague arguments in grey areas. It’s super frustrating and hence why many have stopped responding to you. In fact, not really sure why I am here...

I never said I can’t explain it to you. I said if you can’t see the principle at this point NO SENSE trying to explain it to you.

I disagree. You didn't even say what the principle was, you just referred to "the principle". Some economic principle? You are basically taking the easy way out, instead of supporting your argument just claiming I wont understand and not having to support your position.

For the latter, you have this strange sense of trying to make vague arguments in grey areas. It’s super frustrating and hence why many have stopped responding to you. In fact, not really sure why I am here...

When am I vague? I try to be specific when possible and speak generally when appropriate. I have argued that humans are increasing the rate at which the climate is changing but I have not argued on whether a climate change tax is a good idea to combat it.

I explained why I don't take serious issue with a straw ban, no vagueness. Only you have been vague about some principle of the matter.

I disagree. You didn't even say what the principle was, you just referred to "the principle". Some economic principle? You are basically taking the easy way out, instead of supporting your argument just claiming I wont understand and not having to support your position.

When am I vague? I try to be specific when possible and speak generally when appropriate. I have argued that humans are increasing the rate at which the climate is changing but I have not argued on whether a climate change tax is a good idea to combat it.

I explained why I don't take serious issue with a straw ban, no vagueness. Only you have been vague about some principle of the matter.

Even if humans did play a role in any minute climate change, the world needs to focus on countries that are the major contributors like China, Vietnam, India, etc...But instead many "activist" come to western style societies to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Follow the money.

Global Warming-OMG the ice caps will melt
They didn't
So change the name to Climate Change that way they can be as vague as possible and blame any kind of strong fart as mans fault.

The US ranks very low on the pollution scale compared to the rest of the world.  So further bans or taxes are just so big brother can control stuff.

Even if humans did play a role in any minute climate change, the world needs to focus on countries that are the major contributors like China, Vietnam, India, etc...But instead many "activist" come to western style societies to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Follow the money.

Global Warming-OMG the ice caps will melt
They didn't
So change the name to Climate Change that way they can be as vague as possible and blame any kind of strong fart as mans fault.

The US ranks very low on the pollution scale compared to the rest of the world.  So further bans or taxes are just so big brother can control stuff.

The "Carbon Credit" scheme is one of the telltale signs that Climate Change programs are scams.  When rich people can CONTINUE LIVING THEIR LIFESTYLES WHILE PRODUCING EXCESSIVE CARBON EMISSIONS by paying a "Carbon Tax" to purchase "credits", it's nothing more than a money grab.  Paying the "tax" for credits changes no behaviors, reduces zero carbon emissions, and affects nothing related to climate.  It just allows those who can afford to pay the ability to ignore climate change while assuaging their guilt.

The Paris Accord was the mother of all money grabs under the Climate Change charade.  Taking tax dollars from  the US to help polluting countries improve their economies WITH NO GUARANTEES they will improve carbon emissions is just stupid.

Simply take a snapshot of the private jets being flown around the world so celebrities, experts and politicians can attend climate change meetings.  Those jets put out massive carbon emissions.  Those people could just as easily fly commercially, since those planes are going to the same destinations anyway.

Private Jets are the new Limousines for the uber-wealthy "Limousine Liberals".

The "Carbon Credit" scheme is one of the telltale signs that Climate Change programs are scams.  When rich people can CONTINUE LIVING THEIR LIFESTYLES WHILE PRODUCING EXCESSIVE CARBON EMISSIONS by paying a "Carbon Tax" to purchase "credits", it's nothing more than a money grab.  Paying the "tax" for credits changes no behaviors, reduces zero carbon emissions, and affects nothing related to climate.  It just allows those who can afford to pay the ability to ignore climate change while assuaging their guilt.

The Paris Accord was the mother of all money grabs under the Climate Change charade.  Taking tax dollars from  the US to help polluting countries improve their economies WITH NO GUARANTEES they will improve carbon emissions is just stupid.

Simply take a snapshot of the private jets being flown around the world so celebrities, experts and politicians can attend climate change meetings.  Those jets put out massive carbon emissions.  Those people could just as easily fly commercially, since those planes are going to the same destinations anyway.

Private Jets are the new Limousines for the uber-wealthy "Limousine Liberals".

"Simply take a snapshot of the private jets being flown around the world so celebrities, experts and politicians can attend climate change meetings.  Those jets put out massive carbon emissions.  Those people could just as easily fly commercially, since those planes are going to the same destinations anyway.

Private Jets are the new Limousines for the uber-wealthy "Limousine Liberals".

More likely they hate the TSA as much as I do.  If I had the income, I'd avoid commercial also.
As for the environment, I still have all my cold weather hunting gear from WA state and my gear from
my time working on the summit of Mauna Kea.
I suspect I'll need it sooner than later.
Aloha.

Even if humans did play a role in any minute climate change, the world needs to focus on countries that are the major contributors like China, Vietnam, India, etc...But instead many "activist" come to western style societies to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Follow the money.

Global Warming-OMG the ice caps will melt
They didn't
So change the name to Climate Change that way they can be as vague as possible and blame any kind of strong fart as mans fault.

The US ranks very low on the pollution scale compared to the rest of the world.  So further bans or taxes are just so big brother can control stuff.

Not gonna get into the whole climate change issue because that will probably go too far off track and isn't directly relevant. We all know that plastics are not good for the environment and that they take hundreds of thousands of years to biodegrade. They get into water supplies and are consumed by animals and even by us. Climate change or no climate change we know this to be true about plastics so I think we can at least start with the basic understanding that less plastic being thrown away is better right?

I understand that  we are much better than a lot of other countries but it doesn't mean we shouldn't make that tiny dent. Maybe the tiny dent leads to a bigger dent, maybe it doesn't, but what is the real loss in reducing out plastic consumption in this way? Worst case scenario I see in this one is that we are inconvenienced with a slightly more expensive green option or that unpleasant paper straw, best case scenario I see is that demand for a plastic alternative spurs innovation and gives us an eco-friendly without the drawbacks of current alternatives. For the record I used to bring my own tupperware container to a food truck at least once a week. Saved plastic from going in the landfill and saved the food truck guy 25 cents. Got teased for it. Not sure why it bothered others so much but whatever.


On a side note, we used to send a lot of our recyclable plastic to China but they are no longer accepting it and it is now becoming an increasing problem for us here in America.