LilNaib

That’s too specific for me to turn one up; most of it is in the form of people saying “i’m doing regenerative ag, pay me” and doing no measurement and making all sorts of wild claims.

Big negative claims apparently backed by nothing.

There are some serious limits to its scale as well.

Gabe Brown's regenerative ag farm is 5000 acres. That's a specific claim. You can even visit his farm in person.

Without accounting and auditing to track what’s going on, you often don’t get great results.

You can say the exact same thing about the things you propose... so again, where are we? Please consider this line of reasoning and ask yourself why you're so quick to use it.

Regenerative agriculture is ill-defined, and there’s a lot of fraud in that space when it comes to carbon sequestration claims.

Can you show me a lot of fraud in regenerative agriculture in the context of USDA NRCS SOM tests? I'd like to see it.

What you describe (using fossil fuels) is a worst case scenario and not a requirement. I could turn the argument around and say don't use the heat pumps you recommend because after all, they require electricity, which requires fossil fuels. And then where are we?

You say that CDR is expensive, but it's not. As proof I'll give two examples:

• companies that make and sell biochar
• regenerative agriculture that sequesters many tons of carbon in soil while being more profitable than conventional agriculture

You can make biochar at home and it's not expensive. The finished product is a valuable commodity.

You can get to personal net zero but not with offsets.

See Carbon Dioxide Removal.

You make an important point: constitutionally-protected speech is the strongest link in their defense.

These people almost always have social media accounts, personal website hosting, and other business arrangements. None of this business is constitutionally protected and all of these business partners can be identified and many can be persuaded to cut ties. For years people have been using vague untargeted appeals to decency and it has gotten no results at all. We need to target their business partners with boycots and consumer education in the same way that wish.com became a synonym for low quality.

I certainly support that.

Not saying it can't be done, just that it isn't.

We should work toward proven solutions instead.

The article says:

The Golden State’s poorest residents — those already enrolled in discounted rate programs — would pay small fixed charges.

and

Millionaires and billionaires would be slapped with the same fixed charges as middle-class families struggling to get by

Maybe I'm misreading, or maybe the article is poorly written, but it sounds like everyone would be paying fixed fees.

Setting a fee based on income sounds super error prone and vulnerable to gaming in the same way that the rich can avoid taxation. Imagine a CEO making $1 in salary with the rest in stocks, how would that be charged? Or imagine $1 in salary, but the rest in free housing, food, transportation, etc. What's the overhead for properly monitoring all this? It must be huge to do a credible job. We're already not doing it and repeating the same obvious error can only be assumed to be intentional.

Just remove base fees and charge people for their usage. Poor people already use much less electricity than rich people so they would save money under my proposal, while the people who use more would have to pay more.

in the form of flat fees on their monthly electric bills

Base fees are regressive and financially disincentivize progress.

If you want people to use less electricity, remove base fees and increase usage fees.

Another way of looking at it: imagine you had to pay a big fee to enter the grocery store, but once inside, everything was similarly priced. A potato would cost almost the same as a ribeye steak. You'd see lots of people walking out with steak, and as a result we'd have a major increase in agriculutural climate emissions.

Electricity is the same way. When everyone's paying base fees to artificially lower usage rates, poor people are subsidizing the extravagant usage of the rich.

Remove regressive base fees and charge people for the damage they do.

Ya, I know we did sixty shows last year and grossed over a billion dollars from it, but how about we quadruple the number of staff we have to pay to only do ten shows this year. It would be really nice if we paid hundreds of employees to live on a sailboat for three months out of the year. Not like the largest music company in the world is going to expect an increase in profits.

Who is "we" - are you employed by Taylor Swift or an affiliated company?

She's rich enough to be able to easily afford ANY travel type possible, without having to even ask the cost, and she chooses the dirtiest and most expensive one.

If she cared about climate change, she would just intrinsically understand that paying someone else to be a good person doesn't morally justify her being a bad person (aka, how carbon credits are marketed and sold).

Instead of taking a trans-oceanic flight, she could go on a container ship or sailboat. She's a musician and I bet these experiences would be vastly more inspiring than harassing college kids through lawyers.

For domestic travel she could use a vehicle powered by restaurant waste vegetable oil (WVO) instead of fossil fuel. Or she could take an EV charged by renewable sources. Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman did a 13000 mile (21000km) electric motorcycle trip in 2019 from the southern tip of Argentina to Los Angeles called The Long Way Up, their 3rd such superlong trip, and their first on electric vehicles. They loved it and called it the future, and they had support from a prototype Rivian truck, which therefore advanced the space of electric cars as well. MANY people are doing this, some rich, some poor. For our climate emissions, there's no time left for excuses either for Taylor Swift or for ourselves.