This is problematic, it means I can't just send this to a pro-fossil guy I know. He would rightly dismiss it on those grounds (he is on "CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food" level at the moment) and will be even more convinced by his side.
Which brings another point: I think it would be more productive to focus on direct damage to environment and health than on CO2. "You will be more likely to die from cancer and your children are going to be less intelligent if they grow up here" has more appeal than: "in 25 years there will be serious food/arable land shortage mainly at the other part of the world".
The reason you can't send this to your friend isn't the use of the word "subsidy". The issue is that the whole article is premised on agreeing that "increasing CO2 levels is a negative externality,". If your friend does not agree about that, there is no point in sending him this article.
"he" is a huge powerful collective of similar viewpoints. If you don't feel the need to win them over how do you expect to ever affect change?
"he" is not just some evil, fat-cat oil company exec; they are entire communities and large groups of broad-based people
"he" is not an absolute position that global warming doesn't exist; it's a broad spectrum of opinions ranging from climate deniers to those concerned with the painful impact of treatment that may be widely ineffective.
in short: discount huge portions of the population at your own peril; don't expect them to rally to your cause if they're beneath your consideration.
> "he" is not an absolute position that global warming doesn't exist; it's a broad spectrum of opinions ranging from climate deniers to those concerned with the painful impact of treatment that may be widely ineffective.
No, you can't simply shift the ideological division line. Someone who is convinced that climate is changing doesn't believe "CO2 is not a pollutant", regardless of how concern they are with the impact of the treatment, and it's disrespectful to put them in the same bag.
