# Would You Pay for Air to Breathe?



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 14, 2019)

A few years ago this would've come as a joke because air has always been free (not always) so why pay now? But with pollution being transparent (not always, of course) and you don't even notice it you're breathing it until, for example, you clean your nose and notice all the black dirt that comes out of it due to the pollution.

This video below was filmed in Georgia (located in Eastern-Europe, not the American state ) where they made a fake tax that people had to pay and those hit with it though that it was real.

​
Would I pay for air if it'd get even worse? Probably not but maybe in an emergency, I would.


----------



## Veho (Mar 14, 2019)

Paying for air sure sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? 


 



We already pay for drinking water (one way or the other), I can see it happening with air some day.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Mar 14, 2019)

It´s only a matter of time.



and money

If you want good medical care you habe to pay more than the standard.....
If you want good and "valuable" food,you have to pay more than for the standard
If you want good and clean water you have to pay more........
If you want a good quality of living you have to pay........


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Mar 14, 2019)

Only a person serious enough to kill the human race would want such a thing to be reality.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 14, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> A few years ago this would've come as a joke because air has always been free (not always) so why pay now? But with pollution being transparent (not always, of course) and you don't even notice it you're breathing it until, for example, you clean your nose and notice all the black dirt that comes out of it due to the pollution.
> 
> This video below was filmed in Georgia (located in Eastern-Europe, not the American state ) where they made a fake tax that people had to pay and those hit with it though that it was real.
> 
> ...



Smart insurance company

They said that stunt increased their sales leads by 400%

They are obviously only in it for the money

I don't know if this will be an issue on Earth any time soon - but paying for air is going to be a reality if we colonize mars or some other planet with poor atmosphere/low O2 content


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 14, 2019)

Those hit with it though that it was real must be dumb. Anyway, it will never happen, lol. NEVER! Surely, the air would be so bad that nobody will survive no matter where you hide.. but extinct 100 percent easy.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Mar 14, 2019)

I firmly believe the world will be destroyed long before this is necessary


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

Two words: "Hell no".


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 14, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> I firmly believe the world will be destroyed long before this is necessary



Seriously ? You mean Earth itself will be Destroyed as it doesn't existed anymore in the space ?


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Mar 14, 2019)

Yup, this is where we're headed. Here in the USA we're on the verge of legalizing Marijuana, yet there are no laws on the books about containing the smell. 

I had a neighbor that would smoke it on his back porch. Normally I'm of the opinion that it's your body, it ought to be your choice what you put in it. If it kills you, gives you lung cancer, etc. that's your own dumb fault. As far as I'm concerned, in a world where we're supposed to be "free," there should be no such thing as illegal drugs. As long as you're not putting other people's lives at risk (example: you want to drink and get drunk as fuck, go ahead. Your body, your freedom. But you do NOT have the freedom to get in a car and put MY life at risk while you're intoxicated.) Anyway, the problem I have is that the smell was so bad it wreaked outside, and because of it I couldn't let my son play in my backyard.

You wanna smoke weed? That's great, I think you should be able to. But I shouldn't have to deal with the aftermath, keep that shit contained.

Anyway, I know the smell has been a bigger problem in D.C. where they've legalized it to some degree. But to my knowledge they haven't made any laws regarding second-hand smoke or the smell.

... that's totally on purpose. In two decades I wouldn't be surprised if we had to pay for "pure air" the way people think they're paying for "pure water" now. It'll be the only way of breathing without smelling skunk everywhere.

Don't mind me, just working on the next big conspiracy theory...


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 14, 2019)

Sorry, but this is a stupid topic. None of us wants to pay this tax, but we all know that we'd pay it when it was forced upon is. I mean...it's not like we have an alternative.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Mar 14, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Seriously ? You mean Earth itself will be Destroyed as it doesn't existed anymore in the space ?


Actually yes


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 14, 2019)

To a certain extent, we already pay a tax in the form of having government regulatory agencies that enforce rules upon usually companies to not poison the air (too much).  As far as being a new joke, you should look back in history a bit.  It wasn't until 1963 that the US had the "Clean Air Act".  Plenty of sci-fi or dystopian movies have explored the idea of, one way or another, paying for air.

As comparing to paying for water, that's a bad analogy because drinkable water isn't naturally pervasive on most the Earth surface.  Keeping fresh water sufficiently clean of pollutants is a regulatory thing, and plenty of people possess a well or other water source so the only cost of water is the energy to collect and treat said water.  Ie, there's no water or food tax in most countries precisely because “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”.  Ergo we have general taxation to regulate, not a use tax on anything which is deemed sufficiently necessary to exist.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 14, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> Actually yes



Hahaha. Alright, I believed it is not going to.


----------



## DuoForce (Mar 14, 2019)

Capitalism is going to kill us all.


----------



## Viri (Mar 14, 2019)

They're called air filters. You want nice clean fresh air, buy an air filter. I can only imagine the air filter market is booming in China, and wildfire places like California.


----------



## Asia81 (Mar 14, 2019)

You know what?
It exist it Paris, when you can pay for breath air in Oxygen bar 
That's pathetic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 14, 2019)

Those saying "never" have a look at what CO2 concentration does to intelligence scores, ability to concentrate and just how little you have to have in you before things change drastically. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037




kuwanger said:


> As comparing to paying for water, that's a bad analogy because drinkable water isn't naturally pervasive on most the Earth surface.  Keeping fresh water sufficiently clean of pollutants is a regulatory thing, and plenty of people possess a well or other water source so the only cost of water is the energy to collect and treat said water.  Ie, there's no water or food tax in most countries precisely because “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”.  Ergo we have general taxation to regulate, not a use tax on anything which is deemed sufficiently necessary to exist.



There are places in the US where it is illegal to catch the rainwater that falls on your land ( https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/ ). Similarly there are also places that require you to drill a well if you express an interest in collecting rainwater for your use, the former being a finite resource in the case of most aquifers (itself a fun topic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/ ).


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> There are places in the US where it is illegal to catch the rainwater that falls on your land ( https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/ ). Similarly there are also places that require you to drill a well if you express an interest in collecting rainwater for your use, the former being a finite resource in the case of most aquifers (itself a fun topic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/ ).



Which reminds me of a short story called "The Thirst Quenchers" by Raphael Rick.  It was clearly written at a time before desalination plants were viable but while the idea of ubiquitous nuclear power was still vogue.  In any case, there's a lot more of a fresh water crisis brewing than one of breathable air.  Even so, it's hard for me to believe we'll get to the point of taxing water.  Rationing it, especially for agriculture, or making more strict rules about collection from aquifers, rain, etc?  Yes.  It's definitely something that'll be a lot harder to push through than burn rules or mandatory recycling.


----------



## Viri (Mar 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Those saying "never" have a look at what CO2 concentration does to intelligence scores, ability to concentrate and just how little you have to have in you before things change drastically. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's illegal more if you leave the rainwater sitting outside, because it attracts Mosquitoes. If you store it inside something, I think it's perfectly legal. I could be wrong though.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 15, 2019)

Agree. We would really be in trouble before the need to pay for air directly.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 15, 2019)

I've given it some more thought. I won't deny that it would meet with huge resistance, but it's not as far fetched as it first seems. Look...there was a point in history where government officials said "okay...we have to draw a line. From now on, you can't just claim land and do what you want with it anymore. It'll become a good that can be bought and sold, and will be taxed accordingly". To us, this makes perfect sense, but I can imagine the general population didn't like being taxed for simply using what was already there to begin with.

And...it might just be Belgium, but I assume this goes for most countries: there are already huge amounts of taxes that make little to no sense (anymore). Most often, a tax is created in times of need or to change a certain behavior (festivals playing too loud? Introduce a local tax on loud noises) and then quietly remains dormant, sometimes years after the origin is taken away. When I learned about taxes in...2000, I think...there was this Belgian thing called "crisisbelasting". It was a tax to help out in a crisis that was then introduced somewhere years before that. And I just checked: it still exists to this day.

Compared to that, at least a tax on clean air makes SOME sense. Yes, everyone who breathes has to pay that tax. And those who drive cars as well (hint: cars pollute). Airline and shipyard companies as well. Farmers will have to pay for their animals as well. And so on. And while this certainly sounds increasingly scary (is the government just going to tax EVERYONE?????), you have to look more to the global picture.
First and foremost: the more people getting taxed, the lower the total amount will be (taxes are usually drawn up so they bring in a certain amount of money. Usually because they already have plans to use said income on other projects).
Second: even small taxes have huge effects on people's behavior. Over time, it will lead to things that now have 'air pollution' as side product to become more expensive. This will simulate companies to search for alternative means of production that have less air pollution. Which isn't so much "tax evasion" as the probable intention of the tax. Because in case you haven't noticed: no one is in favor of pollution, but companies (and even individuals) generally don't mind it if it means it's the cheapest way of production. If a tax means that a non-polluting way of production becomes cheaper...then who is really against it?


----------



## RandomUser (Mar 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I won't deny that it would meet with huge resistance


Funny, most people I meet seems to love paying for taxes and they are all for new taxes and such. So much for resistance, at least in the US anyways. Perhaps I'm associating with all the wrong people?


----------



## notimp (Mar 15, 2019)

Taxpayers? 

*scratchhead*

Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 15, 2019)

RandomUser said:


> Funny, most people I meet seems to love paying for taxes and they are all for new taxes and such. So much for resistance, at least in the US anyways. Perhaps I'm associating with all the wrong people?


Erm...assuming you're not being sarcastic...

I would think so. From what I've heard of the US, it's very common to be "anti government". AFAIK, the republicans always wanted at least government as possible, but even the democrats regulate things only a tiny bit. It can very well be that a large population percentage understands that taxes pay for all that is necessary in a country that companies won't touch (and frankly: Sanders leading the poll vote seems to indicate that not even being unlikely).
But still...it's not the image foreigners have of Americans (sorry).


----------



## BlueFox gui (Mar 15, 2019)

people just care about something when shit happens, so fuk u al hop u die


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 15, 2019)

How are they going to stop people from breathing air for free? 
I might pay for pure oxygen, but paying for something which is largely nitrogen our bodies can't use seems like a scam. No thanks.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 15, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> How are they going to stop people from breathing air for free?
> I might pay for pure oxygen, but paying for something which is largely nitrogen our bodies can't use seems like a scam. No thanks.


They won't. However if you feel the mental effects of lower oxygen/high CO2 then springing for some air that our biology is more adapted for becomes an easier sell, though you might go the other way and figure that by such a time as it matters there might be some body mods that make it better.

In most of the scenarios it is not like paying to remove a bad smell that will go away in a few minutes, or having to buy a paper face mask (or maybe slight activated charcoal).

Also look up Hyperoxia, the Bends and other such things.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Mar 15, 2019)

Humanity failed if we had to pay for air.


----------



## darkmolddd (Mar 15, 2019)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Only a person serious enough to kill the human race would want such a thing to be reality.



U hit the spot... i really what to this happens as soon as possible. I dont want to see it when im old enough to no defens my self. No matter if is water, food, oil, acid ocean or what ever it will happend in less that 30 year and as soon as better.


----------



## Veho (Mar 15, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> How are they going to stop people from breathing air for free?


Nobody is going to try to stop you. Here you go. Breathe all you want. Enjoy.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Do you think this thread is click bait?


----------



## Cyan (Mar 16, 2019)

I already pay to breath better air, for sun and summer sea, mountain fresh air !
I live on French riviera, and can tell you the life price is a lot higher than every where else in France, except Paris (which has a shit air pollution and weather for the same price haha)


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

*grin* hows the air better? More salty?


----------



## Cyan (Mar 16, 2019)

Less car's polluted air. Paris has to take action to prevent cars from being used specific days to lower pollution.
Alps are definitely better than Paris for air comparison. Same for weather, it's sunny 90% of the year. that's why we (people living here) think higher price is related to that. better place, everyone prefer being here, offer and demand rises prices.

you are right the air is more humid.
not salty  (first and second degree)


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Yes, pollution is a negative word I'll leave you with that:







Polution are molecules in the air broken down towards part of a million, that shows no significant population age differences between rural regions and cities in statistics. Because the thresholds were chosen as such. (edit: In the west)

Also, cities are still growing. 
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/popups/mod13t01s009.html

But you do you man.  And you feel good about it. (= Thats what humans are all about..  ) So should the average person in a city.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 16, 2019)

In China people buy cans of imported air.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Here are the hard questions, that dont foster a mob mentality:

- Would you still care about air polution if it kills, or impacts you heavily, only after you are statistically dead? How about 5 years prior?

(How about if it doesnt impact your lifespan, but only 30% of your peers?)

- Do people still smoke voluntarily? Not because that would excuse it - but beacuse they are also trading 5 years of their lifespan for "good conversations" and an addiction.  

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Snugglevixen said:


> In China people buy cans of imported air.


Air bars. Totally not a marketing ploy.

Those are there to make people feel better about themselves momentarily.

We have the same thing in the west. We call them "juice bars". (People drink apple juice with vegetables in good company.) Great business model. Customer always satisfied.


----------



## jurassicplayer (Mar 16, 2019)

Don't need to pay for air when you are a brain in a vat.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

jurassicplayer said:


> Don't need to pay for air when you are a brain in a vat.


Former trope of philosophy students, now a trope of transhumanists (lol).  (sings: *Who wants to live forever..*)

edit: here is the satirical look at it: "Now that all of the worlds production industry is situated in china, we in the west really need to takle the polution problem, that left with them. Asap."


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 16, 2019)

jurassicplayer said:


> Don't need to pay for air when you are a brain in a vat.


Sounds like Fallout. Wouldn't the brain still need O2?


----------



## RandomUser (Mar 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm...assuming you're not being sarcastic...
> 
> I would think so. From what I've heard of the US, it's very common to be "anti government". AFAIK, the republicans always wanted at least government as possible, but even the democrats regulate things only a tiny bit. It can very well be that a large population percentage understands that taxes pay for all that is necessary in a country that companies won't touch (and frankly: Sanders leading the poll vote seems to indicate that not even being unlikely).
> But still...it's not the image foreigners have of Americans *(sorry)*.


Don't worry about it, you're good. I mean they're probably some people out their that doesn't like paying taxes, but they are in the minority, and for reasons for not liking to pay taxes is mostly due in part of the tax money not being properly utilize to keep the country running or not maintaining such infrastructure, a theory of the tax dollars is the governing body is pocketing the money. That maybe far-fetch but not impossible.


----------



## livipup (Mar 16, 2019)

I think if we don't make an effort to clean the air now that eventually things are going to get so bad cities will have to install industrial air purifiers throughout public spaces and that the governments will charge citizens a tax for maintaining them. It's the route we're heading toward if we don't focus on clean energy production and reducing carbon emissions from both factories and consumer vehicles. I know here in Canada a carbon tax was put in place, but that doesn't stop manufacturers from polluting. It's more of a money-grab for the government. There needs to be an actual limit on how much CO2 a factory is allowed to put out with no way to get around that limit.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 16, 2019)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Only a person serious enough to kill the human race would want such a thing to be reality.



eh hem.......right here

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



livipup said:


> I think if we don't make an effort to clean the air now that eventually things are going to get so bad cities will have to install industrial air purifiers throughout public spaces and that the governments will charge citizens a tax for maintaining them. It's the route we're heading toward if we don't focus on clean energy production and reducing carbon emissions from both factories and consumer vehicles. I know here in Canada a carbon tax was put in place, but that doesn't stop manufacturers from polluting. It's more of a money-grab for the government. There needs to be an actual limit on how much CO2 a factory is allowed to put out with no way to get around that limit.


 i read an article where it's too late for reversing the effects of Global warming even if we plant a bunch of trees it's just too late 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reducing-atmospheric-co2/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climat...-late-to-reverse-the-damage-say-some-experts/


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

livipup said:


> I think if we don't make an effort to clean the air now that eventually things are going to get so bad cities will have to install industrial air purifiers throughout public spaces and that the governments will charge citizens a tax for maintaining them. It's the route we're heading toward if we don't focus on clean energy production and reducing carbon emissions from both factories and consumer vehicles. I know here in Canada a carbon tax was put in place, but that doesn't stop manufacturers from polluting. It's more of a money-grab for the government. There needs to be an actual limit on how much CO2 a factory is allowed to put out with no way to get around that limit.


Wow, thats almost entirely wrong.

Industrial air purifiers are already a thing - and they do too little in regards to their cost, so they basically dont work. But wherever they were set up in public squares, people championed them as a real milestone of technological achievement, so they reacted to them - very well.

Also - tell me how air pollution will be a pressing urge (in the west), in an age, where oil is starting to become a limited good, air filters are already a thing in all industrial applications, and most of the industry has moved to China and surrounding countries, where they have a _real_ issue with air pollution.

Carbon taxes get put in place, so there is a price on pollution - which has to be set by "the entire world", or it doesnt work. Thats what the climate summits are for, if you dont just see them as events for activists doing rain dances in front of congress buildings.

What I start to really wonder about is - how do you get people in the west to think like you do? Where does the notion come from, that air pollution will get worse at all?

Even if we stick to non regenerative energy (which we will) in some form or another - even switching to natural gas instead of coal, solves the entire problem.

Taxes also arent the "issue" that will happen, when we dont solve this by civic action. Civic action in general does nothing, Apart from making everyone mad - so policy gets put into place. So taxes would actually be a solution - while "activist voluntarily do something, for something, something climate" - is not.

Your  feelings of urgency, inevitability, accumulation, trend projection, solution proposal, ... everything is entirely wrong. Yet you feel strongly about it happening.

You also are for democracy I suppose?

This one is much easier to confront than "global warming" - because its local. We in the west dont have much of that problem. China does. In China no one cares, because they are too busy becoming billionaires in a - currently - 6% annual growth economy, that doesnt care about air pollution IN THE LEAST.

(They are working on mitigating the issue in the future, and are actually on the forefront of developing technology to do it - but they wont employ it, if it harms their developmental trajectory one bit. Because then their government and prosperity is history faster than they can even thing about the long term...)


In some cities, we have an issue with air pollution coming from traffic _on some days of the year_, that basically would be entirely solved, if only half of the people would use their cars to drive to work every day. Which requires the implementation of public traffic infrastructure, which is expansive, but doable. Or it would be solved by Uber (more economical driving). Or by electric vehicles - which to produce takes 30% less workers than in the past - a major german car manufacturer just announced. And has a far, far worse "value add" by complex engineering, so buy your cars from china, as soon as you can - because they will be just as good.

Which is why people ask themselves for years now, why on earth the german car industry has told policy makers, that the future would be electric, and they should pivot towards that with legislation as well. Its them destroying their industrial base, handing over marketshare to other countries, and wanting their own govenrnments to support that. Because of their recommendation. And something, something climate. What? While at the same time, we are supposed to pay more for natural gas from america, than for example russia, which is closer, because of political reasons, so we still dont shut down cole based power plants as quickly. What?

But thats just politics - so that will be made to work, eventually - while I have no idea - what to do with all the crazed climate activists on the streets, that have no ideas or proposals of what to do themselves. But aspirations and dreams... That wont be economically viable to even 15% of what they expect them to be.

And then marketing is supposed to pick up the difference and sell those ideas around the world, or what?

Do me a favor. At your next raindance meet ups, start to think about what you are actually doing.


----------



## air2004 (Mar 16, 2019)

There's a sucker born every minute


----------



## CMDreamer (Mar 16, 2019)

A little thing should be changed on that click bait title of yours.

The whole content states if you would pay for "air", but its referring to clean and breathable air.

My answer would be no, I wouldn't pay for plain and simple air, but if I'd needed to safely breathe and survive, then I would pay for medical oxygen.


----------



## SkittleDash (Mar 17, 2019)

I swear, if they tried charging, I'd go to them and take a deep breath. And then exhale in their face.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

SkittleDash said:


> I swear, if they tried charging, I'd go to them and take a deep breath. And then exhale in their face.


Given the likely scenario when this happens is if the air becomes less desirable then it would probably play out like someone saying "I will not pay for your water as I have a well that produces slightly brackish and sulphurous water" before proceeding to drink that in front of me. 

Also somewhat surprised nobody has particularly considered what happens when humanity decides to do the whole living in space thing.


----------



## livipup (Mar 17, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> eh hem.......right here
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Planting trees may not help, but we could likely do other stuff besides planting trees.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Also somewhat surprised nobody has particularly considered what happens when humanity decides to do the whole living in space thing.


You mean that any attempt to monetize air wouldn't cause riots in an small enclosed area? Once stabilized, you wouldn't need any personal oxygen, unless you have health problems or you are leaving the habitat.

In fact, trying to monetize anything before a stable habitat has been long establish would cause riots.


----------



## GhostLatte (Mar 17, 2019)

I mean we already pay for water.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

GhostLatte said:


> I mean we already pay for water.


In most of Europe people actually rebelled at the notion, of selling their water facilities to private (not communally owned) companies.

(Communal companies: Profits get used for the same thing tax income is used, and nothing else.)

Thats actually a hot topic issue where people will protest on the streets to never let it happen, where I am from.

And when some neoliberals tried to present it as a great new opportunity in my country, they got hit in the mouth immediately and afterwards got ridiculed in all media outlets. They dropped the suggestion so fast, you should have seen it.

To pay for water has the intended effect to "cap its miss-use". Make people think about taking long showers, fixing a leaky faucet, stuff like that. Or a revenue stream for the state, if you want to look at it from that perspective - but then the state uses that money for common good projects.

Now if you sell out your water infrastructure, thats on you. You could have prevented that politically.

But apart from that - valid point.

Now, its a little harder to own air though..


----------



## Super.Nova (Mar 17, 2019)

Maybe not everyone noticed, but we already are paying for cleaner air to breathe.
Particularly, people who buy air filters and such as pollution has passed the threshold their respiratory systems can withstand and developed symptoms.

Still, seeing how things are progressing, we'll be buying cleaner air very soon.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

If you are in a part of the world thats currently heavily into industrial production, the arguments get different, yes.

China has real issues with Air pollution these days. Europe and the US "on most (95%) days of the year" (problematic out, but still) have not.

Chinese activist initiative on that topic (spearheaded by a TV spokespersons, shut down by the government within a month):


Keywords to search for: Under the dome (title of the shut down innitiative), or google for

china air pollution tv moderator

(Strange search terms, but good results..  )


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> You mean that any attempt to monetize air wouldn't cause riots in an small enclosed area? Once stabilized, you wouldn't need any personal oxygen, unless you have health problems or you are leaving the habitat.
> 
> In fact, trying to monetize anything before a stable habitat has been long establish would cause riots.



I don't see it, especially if there are going to be privately owned ships/stations/rotating habitats/domes.

We already have ships where there is an expectation of payment (in an enclosed area with no competition) for various things like that. I would see it as an extension of that.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't see it, especially if there are going to be privately owned ships/stations/rotating habitats/domes.
> 
> We already have ships where there is an expectation of payment (in an enclosed area with no competition) for various things like that. I would see it as an extension of that.


We are also talking about space. Much harsher and no longer surrounded by the things that are meant to keeps us alive.  

Sure, there might be an initial price, but doubt the initial years after wouldn't be on a rations system.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Mar 17, 2019)

We have to pay for water since years and water is also an free ressource from mother earth.

Only why the "society" or better said the peoples who stand behind all that controls us,its "better" for us to poor things in the water so it tastes better and its healthier for us and it don´t ruins the water conductions.While our water is not good because of the things that are in the air and get to into.

The same WILL happen to air.Why ? Because its all of the damned MONEY !


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

alexander1970 said:


> We have to pay for water since years and water is also an free ressource from mother earth.


Second try. People have stop to use limericks as a replacement for logic. 

It makes sense to "put a price on drinking water", which people can waste. So they use it more consciously.

It doesnt make sense to "put a price on breathing air", which people cant waste. So they wont breathe more consciously.

Thats really the difference in as far as that argument is concerned for the end user.

Also you have to factor in abundance. And as long as you dont have a high number of people living under water.... They pretty much will tell you "hey - your buy 'better air' concept" really is an artifical construct, isnt it? Clean drinking water, much more of a real concept.

And you have to factor in "ownability". At that point we are back to "air in jars" (or cans) - which really doesnt work. (Its a scam.)
Or airfilters, which is a question you can answer on your own. Do you pay for air filters?

So water and air - actually are quite different in those ways.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

I have met plenty of people that were a waste of air.

I also can't quite get behind your logic there with regards to water. In many cases you are free to live off grid as far as water is concerned. The water piped to you then becomes something of a luxury, though many places have gone further and made it some flavour of public commodity because the maths works out for it.

Similarly it need not just be baseline air but premium quality/treated air, which also brings it in line with water which is typically treated and transported to you. Artificial construct? At this point marginally more so than water -- most people can still breath normal air in most of the world well enough where the average modern day first world human guzzles untreated out of a river or even a lot of wells and their arse will probably be a water cannon in fairly short order, to say nothing of probably not enjoying the taste. Whether that remains to be the case for air in the future, or certain locations in the future, is a different matter, and that was where many presumed the OP was heading.

As for air filters there are several main cases.

1) Allergies or medical.
2) Workshop type environments -- wood dust is not good stuff to be inhaling, nor a lot of other things in workshops. 
3) Item storage and servers.

Dodging getting legionnaires disease via air conditioning also counts for a few there.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

Interesting.  But not the same.

You dont have "premium water" at the water treatment level, its literally drinking water and non drinkable water.

So in terms of air purification that would be "breathable air" and "non breathable" air.

Paying for breathable air, people would understand - and it would be something they could be made to do.

In theory. In practice its probably not. 

Key differences:

- If you dont have clean drinking water, impact is visible almost instantly - if you dont have clean air to breath, maybe after 50 years of your life (or you die at birth, idk - hard to meassure, hard to sell).

- You cant do it through "air purification zones" (analogous to water treatment plants), because they don't work economically (industrial large scale air purification devices (run air thorugh centrifuges to filter out big particles, its funny) do too little in regards to what they cost).

- And you can't "own" the treatment work, because the next gust of wind, will move your work further along.. 

So the common good perspective of paying for "clean air" treatment is never quite thinkable. (Call it clean air tax, and prep up your car industry with it - maybe... Not sure people would react well, though..  )

Now, if we get to "premium water" in the 'Coke business' kind of way (scam  ), thats possible and thinkable (Airbars, canned air, ...), but people still arent dumb enough. 

(The way Coke got people to drink bottled water, was to hand it out to students for free for a couple of years, so everyone else started to associate it with "intelligent people" and higher value than normal water.  )

And selling air filters is a business already. You can buy those, if you think, that you need them.

Differences are to large.

Also there is no urgency. Air isn't getting worse im Europe or America, so there will be no rising demand. (Apart from making it a marketing bubble.)

Thats where the is this thread clickbait?! Sentiments came from.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

Much the same as you have various voltages that most normal people would never see and industrial plants having their own substation then you do have varying water uses -- only suitable for irrigation, and plenty of places have additional user side filtration be all but mandatory (never had to only drink bottled water on holiday?).

It need not just be vanity either; earlier I mentioned CO2 concentrations and its effects on human cognition and other performance metrics ( https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 ). Pull people out of a mental fog and they will often pay a lot to avoid slipping back into it. If the untreated air is still technically breathable...
You can also contemplate going the other way and having it increase performance over baseline or allow increased endurance -- I was watching American football a while back and plenty of presumably good shape American footballers were on the sidelines sucking on oxygen canisters. If that is not paying for air...
For decades now then fractional performance increases have been sought by people and companies (I have a whole manual from the 50s on just that subject for industry/manufacture, and the idea of automation goes back even further) and for the link above those numbers are anything but fractional. If I can get that sort of performance bump from a few filters and tanks of gas or extraction/concentration increasing devices getting plumbed into my air conditioning then yeah. Indeed sitting here contemplating this I am seriously tempted to add air conditioning botherer at levels enough to do for that of thing to my skill set.

Air in Europe and the US is maybe not going to reach China or parts of India levels terribly soon but I can see it, and if those pollution eating paving slabs become a viable thing "we will increase your tax so we can pay for those" will probably be a thing and that is paying by most definitions.

Certainly a lack of drinking water has a more immediate effect but I can't get to dismissing the comparison as


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Much the same as you have various voltages that most normal people would never see and industrial plants having their own substation then you do have varying water uses -- only suitable for irrigation, and plenty of places have additional user side filtration be all but mandatory (never had to only drink bottled water on holiday?).


Bottled water on holidays is an edge case (digestive systems not adapted).

The question I'm after is, if you could sell it in tiers to entire societies, and the answer there rather is no. There you always would get back to basic needs, and not to quality grades. People would not accept quality grades in a basic needs argument. They would always default back to "is it breathable/is it drinkable" and demand from society to make this the base level.



FAST6191 said:


> It need not just be vanity either; earlier I mentioned CO2 concentrations and its effects on human cognition and other performance metrics ( https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 ).


Now you are getting better at selling your premium product. 

Now here are your analogies for todays life. Even companies with contracts with coke, to offer employees free softdrinks usually dont offer them their bottled water brands.

That has to do with the "being recognized as environmentally responsible" aspect, but in terms of motivation its actually the same we are talking about. There is a built in social contract, that even their employees, would go onto the streets to fight for the rights of other people to have clean drinking water, rather than to admit to their families at home, that yes - they are getting the premium water at work.

Same would happen with air, if you brand it (air in large buildings already is "internally purified" in some ways, so you've got me thinking there..  ).


Now if the argument is,  if more people could be sold on brands for water or air. Yes. Just looking at foreign countries. But I think, thats correlated with education, and how low you set your base standard for drinking water / breathing air. So in the west - no.

Also companies wouldnt care for an elongated life of their employees so much (younger employees are cheaper..  ), so if you don't find a value add thats "performance related", you couldnt sell it to them either.. 

edit: And there is CSR (corporate social responsibility), which I refuse to think of as an actual "thing", but apparently is more popular with typical millennials, who follow brands on the instagram, because of it.

Also I hear big companies nowadys are stocking up in "ethics departments" so their projects dont produce the societal outfall, that made Facebook (the instagram company) look like total assholes, and this (premium air) would be a prime project for them to reject.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

"and demand from society to make this the base level"
Yet many places add flouride at additional cost to the water despite it having no particular bearing on it being drinkable or not (instead it doing well for tooth cavities).

As far as bottled water then I have seen plenty of offices have a slab of bottled water, or those water canisters be delivered in, indeed probably more than soft drinks (usually nicely loaded with the sugar and caffeine a lot of people are rather addicted to). Indeed free soft drinks is typically the domain of trendy companies and US IT companies.

As far as companies go. If my 45 year old domain expert can have as much pep as the 21 year old with something to prove by some means then I will try to do it. As it stands many companies already weigh various factors (no kids, physically fit and willing to travel? I will take them over a fat slob that will be off ill a lot and has to wander off or can't travel because of some shrieking crotch fruit taking up their time if it works for what I need, on the other hand the former is more likely to say poke this). The potential for some of this is right up there with that. Whether air will be a notable component before life extension/rejuvenation products come to market and make those 45 year olds back into biologically 21 year olds I don't know.

As far as getting people to buy it. I would say it is not a matter of low education, indeed that would not help much beyond those seeking a fashion symbol. I give you my fancy mask and you find yourself far more able to concentrate, not being knackered at the end of the day, possibly sleeping better, feeling great... as a taste and those that value their mind will come flocking back aka the drug pusher model. You can probably find some company somewhere with two buildings - wire up one with the stuff talked about earlier to regulate the air and not the other. That stats will likely show any number of increased metrics if you do it right (you might even be able to use the vanity of the C level types to get it installed in the first place), and they are probably going to come back to you and you can sell others based on that study.

Society wide and selling tiers. We already sell premium transport, premium clothing, premium food, premium holidays, premium entertainment, electricity with any number of things like "generated from renewables",


----------



## Alexander1970 (Mar 17, 2019)

Here in Austria you have to pay in the meantime for a glas of "free" water from the waterpipe in an restaurant.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

I agree with everything (there being possibilities, this being subject of potential debate), despite the "tiers on the societal level" part.

And one more thing. 

(The ageist thing was a red herring.  )

The premium food part also crossed my mind, but then we have food and public hygiene standards, that really make the upsell - pure marketing, essentially (I could list you the amounts of "superfoods" that have been refuted to have no noticeable impact on health in the recent past..  ).

On the societal level, I still think that people would not accept it, that their families would be worse off than them working at "designed air corp", if there would be a substantial (company specific value add) health benefit, that could be shown.
(Airfilters are not a hot seller in europe..  )

With air, theres somehow a creepyness factor thats immediatly attached to it. 

Now if we are talking about nonethical use ('what if I could increase my teams productivity' without them knowing), I can see the argument there.

Same thing for the intelligence and education argument. The argument was not, that people wouldnt fall for brand effect, but rather, that they still would roam the streets in protest, if the "tierd system" woulndt also include their families. And neighbors.

First lung cancer case in any of your workers families, and you have a PR nightmare on hand. ('Am I not ill, because I've gotten premium air?')

This is almost a prime case for CSR, so the company actually engaging in acts that makes air quality better for everyone ("fake plant trees..."), should be picked up as more beneficial.

The argument is also, that the average human being will do that anyways.

But this relies, on air being seen as more of a common good than specific food, for example, I recognize that.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

"what if I could increase my teams productivity' without them knowing"

Many things like this are done already without people knowing it. Ethics might get a bit more fuzzy when it comes to psychology and hard drugs but if you can demonstrate you are regulating your air to be that of a standard makeup or one recognised by medics then you are back to the same detection, sampling and systems conditioning protocols much like we already have (don't clean your AI and give people Legionnaires disease and you get slapped, mess up and swap an O2 cylinder for CO and yeah). At current prices for things then detection is going to be cheaper and cheaper, and probably nice and networked not unlike a security system before long. Or if you prefer do you think people magically decided to roll out those anti fatigue mats en mass one day or do you think they trialled it a few times first?

You would possibly get the equivalent of the anti vaccine cretins for your premium air but most things tend to be on balance of probability and we have decades of research on air quality/composition and its effects at this point.

I don't think people would care so much for society wide things -- premium medical care which goes directly to life or quality thereof already is a thing, and... I am sure you have seen Americans on the internet that earnestly believe nationalised healthcare to be really bad.

As far as a "creepiness factor" then more likely that is unfamiliarity. How many other things you take for granted today would a person of say 200 years ago think extremely odd?

I also forgot last time. If the water can be wasted so we have means of limiting use/discouraging overuse then what do vehicle emissions regulations, fuel composition regulations, extra taxes (red diesel is still diesel, just a different tax bracket), subsidised public transport and more all count as?

"The ageist thing was a red herring"
Was that in response to another post? You said younger workers are cheaper, I would contend that is far oversimplified and offered an alternative line of thought.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

I'm coming from a use different kinds of smells in retail environments is known to me position - to raise peoples willingness to buy stuff (and I think the difference wasnt significant.. ), the rest is new to me. (I dont necessarily want to go into the deep end on that one..  )

On premium medical care we still have the interesting discussions ahead of us (personalized medicine, gene therapies, ...) in my country so far premium is mostly about waiting time, and certain drugs and treatments in certain cases - but those do not always seem especially beneficial.. 

Also talking about creepiness, ever stumbled into a transhumanist argument in that context?  (Not a thing in the near to mid term future..  )

Yes, creepiness is unfamiliarity - but from a marketing/pr standpoint its still something that you have to overcome first, and hopefully some people will be vocal on the other side as well, so one doesnt easily.. 

Pollution regulation is different, I'm for it, if a noticeable benefit can be shown, that isnt heavily offset by economic detriments (because we all know how the weighing in that case goes), people wouldnt notice it as "paying for air to breathe", because it would be indirect enough.

If you ask them directly to pay for that... I already said idk, results could go both ways. Depends on the packaging.. 

On the age isnt everything part, I'm entirely with you. That argument I just threw in there for fun..  (Red herring.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2019)

As far as personalised treatments and gene therapy it will probably be similar to now with outcomes, costs (a lifetime of medication not coming too cheap) and such like. What will go for the similar things to like we see for plastic surgery now I don't know. It might also depend how easily it can be done -- with some of the current viral stuff it is possibly not too far off like some of us now have house price and then a bit machine shops to play with, and the potential there is far greater than being able to do what most do with machine shops.
Equally said drugs and treatments can be rather contentious -- a good start tending to be diabetes.

Transhumanism is a favourite topic of mine, though I am not sure what you are getting at there. As far as not happening then I would differ there and expect to see it before too long.


----------



## LowEndC (Mar 17, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> A few years ago..



 insert "guess i'll die" meme here.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 17, 2019)

Only if there’s a 2 for 1 sale going on


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

I get two air with fries on the side, please.


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

Carbon Tax (aka Clean Air Tax) has been a thing for a time now. You're already paying for air.


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Carbon Tax (aka Clean Air Tax) has been a thing for a time now. You're already paying for air.


There's so many things wrong with this statement.  Consumers don't pay carbon taxes, that's only for corporations.  And they aren't paying for the air, they're paying to pollute it.  Which in turn makes clean air become more of a commodity.  At least the income from the tax can go toward something progressive like solar/wind energy, but only when we have elected responsible leadership.


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's so many things wrong with this statement.  Consumers don't pay carbon taxes, that's only for corporations.  And they aren't paying for the air, they're paying to pollute it.  Which in turn makes clean air become more of a commodity.  At least the income from the tax can go toward something progressive like solar/wind energy, but only when we have elected responsible leadership.



Seems to me everyone pays for it. You're interpretation is lacking insight.

"A carbon tax is a way — the _only_ way, really — to have users of carbon fuels pay for the climate damage caused by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

It's a tax that costs anyone who uses fossil fuels (that covers 99.9999999999%) of the general population money. The tax is meant to regulate bad air - to reduce it. You're paying for clean air. You're paying for air.

"Utilizing existing tax collection mechanisms, a carbon tax is paid “upstream,” i.e., at the point where fuels are extracted from the Earth and put into the stream of commerce, or imported into the U.S. Fuel suppliers and processors are free to pass along the cost of the tax to the extent that market conditions allow. Placing a tax on carbon gives consumers and producers a monetary incentive to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions."

https://www.carbontax.org/whats-a-carbon-tax

I did confuse the Carbon Tax with the Clean Air Tax. I didn't realize they were separate things, but either way you're paying for clean air. Make sure to read the linked article "Next to Nothing for Climate in Obama Plan".

https://www.carbontax.org/carbon-tax-vs-the-alternatives/clean-air-act-regulation/


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 30, 2019)

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but there are air pumps to fill your tires at gas stations all over the place in the US, that you have to insert coins to use. Not all of them, but they're certainly out there in enough abundance to where I notice them. So people are already literally paying for air.


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> I did confuse the Carbon Tax with the Clean Air Tax. I didn't realize they were separate things, but either way you're paying for clean air.


Now you're just repeating the falsehood after your own sources state otherwise.  You're paying to make clean air dirty by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.  Or if you prefer, you're paying to preserve more clean air in the long-term.  But unless you run a large factory, the impact on _you_ personally is next to nothing.  And you aren't going to make me cry for the world's largest polluters who disregard entirely what they're doing to the atmosphere.  Corporations don't _have_ to pass those costs along to the consumer, they _choose_ to.


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Now you're just repeating the falsehood after your own sources state otherwise.  You're paying to make clean air dirty by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.  Or if you prefer, you're paying to preserve more clean air in the long-term.  But unless you run a large factory, the impact on _you_ personally is next to nothing.  And you aren't going to make me cry for the world's largest polluters who disregard entirely what they're doing to the atmosphere.  Corporations don't _have_ to pass those costs along to the consumer, they _choose_ to.



You are paying to keep the air clean as the tax is meant to reduce the amount of carbon in it. If there were no tax the corporations wouldn't be passing the costs onto you and them choosing to do so doesn't change the fact that you are paying for it. I stand by my original statement. You are paying for clean air. I think your THC intake today is clouding your ability to reason.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but there are air pumps to fill your tires at gas stations all over the place in the US, that you have to insert coins to use. Not all of them, but they're certainly out there in enough abundance to where I notice them. So people are already literally paying for air.



ROFL. I think the OP meant "air in general". Not compressed air.


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> You are paying to keep the air clean as the tax is meant to reduce the amount of carbon in it.


So then you agree with my statement.


Xzi said:


> Or if you prefer, you're paying to preserve more clean air in the long-term.


You were just wording it in a way which was easily misunderstood (IMO).  We agree.  No need to be a rude pissant about it.


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

If anyone is wondering I'm all for reducing carbon emissions back to a levels that were present before we started pumping the shit into the air.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> So then you agree with my statement.



You pay for the air you breathe now through the carbon tax. Air is already taxed. The OP asked "would you pay for air" and I pointed out that you already are paying for it. That's what I posted originally.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

When I was younger, some 20 or some years ago, my father asked me "Can you name 5 things that aren't taxed". I started with with air and water ... after about 5 minutes I gave up. Can you name 5 things that aren't taxed?


----------



## slaphappygamer (May 30, 2019)

We pay for water. Why not air? Sure it’s more  of a necessity, but it’s an opportunity to make money. Who wouldn’t want to make money? Charge by the cubic foot and you’ll be so rich. Water is necessary, but not as much as air. Guess I’m off to look for that second job that I always wanted. WAIT, how can we charge pets?


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

slaphappygamer said:


> We pay for water. Why not air? Sure it’s more  of a necessity, but it’s an opportunity to make money. Who wouldn’t want to make money? Charge by the cubic foot and you’ll be so rich. Water is necessary, but not as much as air. Guess I’m off to look for that second job that I always wanted. WAIT, how can we charge pets?



What cracks me up is that all these "taxes" are mostly unnecessary and useless, well, unless you are the person collecting the taxes. In which case, I suppose it's a good way to force idiots to give you their money. So yeah, I'd suggest getting that second job if you want to get rich. Although, you probably won't be solving any problems, just flying around in your private jet, playing golf, eating a lot of expensive food, etc ...


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> If anyone is wondering I'm all for reducing carbon emissions back to a levels that were present before we started pumping the shit into the air.


Glad we're in agreement on that one too.  China has been a big problem lately, even in terms of emitting banned ozone-depleting CFCs, but that doesn't mean we should give up agency over what's happening in the US on that front.



cots said:


> You pay for the air you breathe now through the carbon tax. Air is already taxed.


You don't pay anything for the carbon tax directly, but you do subsidize corporations which pass on those costs to the consumer (which isn't all of them).  When it's a tax on the consumer, it's more a tribute paid to corporate greed than anything else, certainly not a tax on the air you breathe.  Just like Nestle uses public water sources to gather the water they resell in bottles, if air gets sold to people, it'll be sold by Apple or Monster some shit.  Not the government.



cots said:


> When I was younger, some 20 or some years ago, my father asked me "Can you name 5 things that aren't taxed". I started with with air and water ... after about 5 minutes I gave up. Can you name 5 things that aren't taxed?


Oh boo-fucking-hoo.  You get back what you're willing to put into your community.  And if you don't vote in shit representatives to local/state/federal government, at least you get some assurances that tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.  Not just poured back into the corporations which pay people poverty wages for full-time jobs.


----------



## cots (May 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh boo-fucking-hoo.  You get back what you're willing to put into your community.  And if you don't vote in shit representatives to local/state/federal government, at least you get some assurances that tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.  Not just poured back into the corporations which pay people poverty wages for full-time jobs.



There are a lot of other ways you can help your community and country that don't involve being forced to pay for things that are in most part not necessary or required and in most cases the taxes you do pay are never used for what they were intended for and just make the Government and Corporations bigger, richer, more powerful while the common person loses more money and more of their rights.


----------



## froid_san (May 30, 2019)

Having asthma, I'm already paying just to breathe properly


----------



## tech3475 (May 30, 2019)

Reminds me of Bioshock and the HL2 beta.


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> There are a lot of other ways you can help your community and country that don't involve being forced to pay for things that are in most part not necessary or required and in most cases the taxes you do pay are never used for what they were intended for and just make the Government and Corporations bigger, richer, more powerful while the common person loses more money and more of their rights.


Absolutely, I'm simply advocating for _more_ rights, as in the right to medical care without the fear of going into lifelong indebted servitude to pay it off, or the right to vote for all American citizens.  And yes, there are other means of helping and getting more involved with your community, but do you expect charitable effort to do everything in a capitalist society?  Because that would be unrealistic.  Charity isn't going to fix potholes and crumbling bridges.  Or build new public parks.



cots said:


> _"You need the Government" is a lie. In truth, "The Government needs us"._


The government _is_ us, dingus.  And right now it's reflecting the worst of us on the federal level.


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 30, 2019)

Veho said:


> Paying for air sure sounds ludicrous, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are parts of the world that water has never really been free, if you want there's a great historical documentary about it, I think its called, dragon ball.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 30, 2019)

cots said:


> ROFL. I think the OP meant "air in general". Not compressed air.



Gee. No kidding, genius? Smh. It's still paying for air when the majority of places do not charge you to use AIR to fill your tires.


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (May 30, 2019)

I'd rather have a global genocide than this sorta shiet :v
we are trash anyway


----------

