Sure but I want to know exactly how much it is going to cost me and why it should be my cost. Politicians have a horrible habit in this country of being corrupt little freaks and so I don't simply give them the benefit of the doubt.
I won't accept nothing but "It's bad" as a reason to pay another tax. I doubt any sane person would.
Dear Porchrat, if I understand your post, you don't have an issue with Climate Change and the need for action in reducing the ammount of CO2 we pump into the air, your beef is with the Carbon Tax portion of it?
And with that I can agree with you to an extent.
However, I think there are numerous valid reasons behind the carbon tax.
First of all, we need to get all humans to pull together to stop wasting our limited resources.
So what means do we have to accomplish this?
Social conscience would simply not work. Humans are selfish and who (except the really dedicated) wants to give up their nice lifestyle?
So, there needs to be another way to get people thinking and moving in the 'desired' way.
The only viable means is via governments creating laws which will 'force' people to rethink their extravagant ways of using a limited supply, and the only real means they have of affecting that change is by taxing.
No one likes taxes. Everyone would want to do something to pay less tax. If that means investing in energy efficient systems, then most people would do that. If most people only buy energy efficient appliances and vehicles, then manufacturers would be forced to comply with that demand.
Tax energy inefficient appliances more so that people are incentivized (sp?) to buy the better type.
What else would be accomplished by carbon tax?
Hopefully developed countries, which have 'more' financial resources to accelerate the R&D and implementation of better technology by using energy efficient systems will do their bit. It is a fact that the developing world is going to use more natural resources as part of their effort to uplift their citizens. If that would be added to the current rate of emissions, then it would lead to humans hitting the brick wall much earlier. - Either running out of resources (more likely) or climate catastrophe (less likely).
When we need less resources or even the same amount we consume now, then our limited resources would last longer than if we accelerated it's use worldwide. Yes, there are still a lot of coal and oil in the ground, but we as a civilization needs to think ahead about future generations.
Now the counter argument is that governments will simply waste the money recovered on useless projects.
I don't have an answer to that. It would depend on the citizens in each countries to 'police' what that carbon tax is used for. Some countries would be able to do that, I'm afraid that others with not such responsible governments would have a harder time.
But I ask you. What else can we do? Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. Wishful thinking that technology would save us is gambling with our future. How can we make people see the need to stop wasting what limited resources we have?
Sign up with GoogleI personally wont take my science from someone who is a provable liar.
