Don't consume less, just consume less stupidly. If you can get a job done most effectively at a lower rate of consumption, for instance if you can own an electric car that gets you where you want to go, handles well, costs less to buy and is cheaper to maintain, and holds everything you need it to hold, why go out and buy the Hummer? Who are you trying to impress? Mind you that's not the current case but it might be in the near future.
Similarly, if you own a 3000 square foot home and you get full use out of it, great, good for you. You need that home, you want that home, and you use that home. People who buy a bigass house just so they can say they have a bigass house and then proceed to not use most of it (the classic "I have a living room and a family room, the living room is just there to look good, please don't sit on the furniture and the TV isn't even hooked up" situation), are fucking retarded. They're paying a higher mortgage, higher utilities, and buying tons of furniture and decoration that they don't use and don't get anything out of just for some kind of backward-ass ego satisfaction. Even moreso for single celebrities who have massive 20 room multimillion dollar mansions and don't even see some parts of the house on a yearly basis. That's retarded, I'm sorry. If you own a mansion, you are a retard.
I agree that taxation isn't exactly the right solution. Certainly a "carbon tax" is a bad idea, and I'm generally against federal oversight, taxation and government interference. I'm also against the tax subsidies that ultimately enable some of these stupid lifestyles though. I don't like the idea of the government building carbon scrubbers or subsidizing power plant construction or landfills or the meat industry or natural resource harvesting. If you use x amount of energy, you should be paying for x amount of energy. If you create x amount of trash, pay for the fucking space. If you eat two pounds of beef a day, pay the 30 dollars it would cost in a free market, not the 5 dollars you pay thanks to my tax dollars paying to keep the costs down. If some company lends you 400,000 dollars to buy your 3000 square foot home and then you can't afford it, I expect them to take a dive, not to get a massive bail out from the government. Don't expect me to take money out of my wallet, give it to the government, and let them hand it over to the companies that support your excessive lifestyle.
Sorry if that sounds overly angry or directed at Diedrupo, I mean it rather at the general population. I don't want a carbon tax, but I don't want any other taxes subsidizing excess and stupidity either.
Specifically @Diedrupo: your quality of life would actually potentially vastly increase if you bought locally grown food, by the by. The nutritional value of foods steadily declines after harvesting; there's pretty much no way to stop that from happening. Obviously not everything you eat can be produced locally, but to the extent that you can, it's in your best personal interest to get food from the closest possible source. Once again the reduction of federal and state subsidies for agriculture would impact the ability of large scale agricultural operations to maintain efficiency. It would put money back in your wallet, and you'd be free to spend that extra money how you chose.
I'm tired of paying for your beef though, man, and I'm tired of paying for your chicken, and I'm tired of paying huge medical insurance costs to compensate for people's heart disease and diabetes and lung disease and so on. I don't consume it, I don't feel responsible for helping you to do so.
