If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don't think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.
If that's all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the "correct" policy.
You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.
I wasn't making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider "working". And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.
You're defining "work" as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world's population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?
Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.
But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.
I'm not trying to downplay the pollutants from incomplete burning of methane (or other gas) combustion. I'm trying to highlight that it isn't the only consideration when discussion policy or making personal decisions.
Cooking with an electric heat source will produce an equal amount of pollutants from burning oils and organic matter compared to a gas heat source. But a methane or other gas heat source will produce additional (and different) pollutants. Ventilation is important in both scenarios.
FYI - Cooking indoors on electric power sources also screws indoor air quality anytime any fats or organic matter reaches its smoke point or burns. In fact, relative to the food, the methane heat source isn't as big a factor.
Nostr seems like it's set up to allow for unmitigated abuse.
This is an excellent introduction for those that want to try it out.
The point is not to be the "rational economist" who doesn't pick up money off the ground because someone else would have picked it up if it was really there.
this would essentially mean a transfer of wealth from the masses sending remittances to a few HFT traders.
Compared to a frictionless world, this is sub optimal. But as you and the article established, there are frictions that currently result in a tranfer of wealth at a 6% rate of transfer volume which could very well be greater than the future equilibrium you posit.
I think that there are options that could be implemented at scale faster and simpler compared to crypto token exchanges. But any individual current getting hit with high transfer fees could benefit immediately if they know about and learn how to use something like monero.
The report itself is written in very approachable language and is worth reading beyond the summary. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/full-report.html
OpenELA is a non-profit trade association of open source Enterprise Linux distribution developers.
There are many Linux Distributions that are perfectly suitable for enterprise use cases and environments. For the purpose of this charter and project, OpenELA recognizes “Enterprise Linux” (EL) as 1:1 and bug-for-bug source code compatibility which today is aligned to RHEL and CentOS.
OpenELA's mission is to provide a secure, transparent, and reliable Enterprise Linux source that is globally available to all as a buildable base.
OpenELA is a collaboration created and upheld by CIQ, Oracle, and SUSE.
Read the recent article on the formation of OpenELA by Richard Speed at The Register
ParanoidFactoid may be interested in this development.
I'm skeptical of the idea that student protesters typically identify the optimal solution to the problems they identify.
They may be correct in identifying and calling attention to issues, but many of the solutions I've seen proposed by protesters at colleges seem at best tangential to addressing the issues.