0
JKBelieve Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
These english articles keep eluding me in one way or another -_-;;
Hi ^^
I am here today with a passage from a TIME article about carbon credits, I don't find any grammatical problems but I just couldn't understand what the writer was intending...
'Maybe if the idea weren't so closely associated with hippies like Al Gore, conservatives might see carbon credits for what they also are; a brilliant next step in the development of capitalism. What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal. If a deal is voluntary, then by definition it leaves both parties to it better off.'
the emboldened part's meaning keeps eluding me. I don't understand, aren't the conservatives supposed to be for market deals? Isn't the writer here saying that conservatives are objecting to carbon credits because of its capitalistic deals?
Thanx a lot ^^
I am here today with a passage from a TIME article about carbon credits, I don't find any grammatical problems but I just couldn't understand what the writer was intending...
'Maybe if the idea weren't so closely associated with hippies like Al Gore, conservatives might see carbon credits for what they also are; a brilliant next step in the development of capitalism. What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal. If a deal is voluntary, then by definition it leaves both parties to it better off.'
the emboldened part's meaning keeps eluding me. I don't understand, aren't the conservatives supposed to be for market deals? Isn't the writer here saying that conservatives are objecting to carbon credits because of its capitalistic deals?
Thanx a lot ^^
Top answer
From the sentence which follows the part in boldface it seems that the author believes that one of the principles of capitalism is that one of the parties in a capitalist transaction must be left worse off while the other profits. Otherwise it's not capitalism. This is a sort of exploitative theory of capitalism.
- From the sentence which follows the part in boldface it seems that the author believes that one of the principles of capitalism is that one of the parties in a capitalist transaction must be left worse off while the other profits.
- Otherwise it's not capitalism.
- This is a sort of exploitative theory of capitalism.
- From that, we might think the boldface sentence is saying that conservatives are offended that no one is exploited in a carbon credit deal -- and that is puzzling.
- Maybe others will have a different interpretation.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
From the sentence which follows the part in boldface it seems that the author believes that one of the principles of capitalism is that one of the parties in a capitalist transaction must be left worse off while the other profits. Otherwise it's not capitalism. This is a sort of exploitative theory of capitalism. From that, we might think the boldface sentence is saying that conservatives
00
CJ, I've puzzled over this too. It just doesn't make sense to me. (I'm generally considered a conservative, so perhaps that's the problem. I get the part about Al Gore...)
Maybe the problem is with cap-and-trade, you MUST make a deal if you want to keep polluting, and only voluntary deals are allowed? It really doesn't make sense to me at all. A true capitalist would believe that any deal
Maybe the problem is with cap-and-trade, you MUST make a deal if you want to keep polluting, and only voluntary deals are allowed? It really doesn't make sense to me at all. A true capitalist would believe that any deal
00
JKBelieve What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal.Just a guess with my very limited knowledge on carbon credits:
As of now US companies are better off than European ones, since there are t
00
It makes sense to me but it is badly phrased.
What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal.
They are offended by carbon credits because of the capitalist economic system says that there needs to be free exchange of goods and services
What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal.
They are offended by carbon credits because of the capitalist economic system says that there needs to be free exchange of goods and services
00
It makes sense to me but it is badly phrased.
What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal.
They are offended by carbon credits because of the capitalist economic system says that there needs to be free exchange of goods and services
What offends conservatives about carbon credits is not some green absurdity but the very core of the capitalist economic system : the free exchange of goods and services, a.k.a. the deal.
They are offended by carbon credits because of the capitalist economic system says that there needs to be free exchange of goods and services
00
I can explain this for you, though it will take more than a few words. Carbon credits is a way to include a profit motive for saving energy, and hence, a motive for lowering emissions. It works this way: You place a cap on acceptible emissions. Then those companies that produce less than the cap can sell their unused carbon on a carbon market. Companies that go over the cap can buy those cred
00
How to you interpret the part about what the conservatives object to?
00
Nona,
... the government would set the price of the credits?
... production o
They are offended by carbon credits because of the capitalist economic system says that there needs to be free exchange of goods and services (and carbon credits would prevent this).Carbon credits would prevent the free exchange of goods and services because ... ???
... the government would set the price of the credits?
... production o
00
Yeah, me too. I get the cap-and-trade carbon credits thing. Just not the objections to it.
00
Ok, it doesn't prevent trade, but it is putting addtitional restrictions on it. Capitalism is basically a free-for-all system. Companies will incur extra costs in getting below the 'cap' level, which may not be covered by selling on their excess allowances. Companies over the cap level will definitely incurr extra costs.
0
Related Questions