Levy a Carbon Tax on fossil fuels? Yes!
FREE MONEY
The Nurse likes the sound of free money, even though there’s bog all to spend it on in a Secure Unit. And doing the environment a big favour at the same time makes carbon tax sound even better.
A carbon tax taxes the use of fossil fuels. So the user, whether they’re a business or an individual, pays for what they use directly and proportionally. In effect, the polluter pays; we all pay.
So where does the ‘free money’ bit come in? Here are the ins and outs:
A carbon tax economy
-
a carbon tax would be difficult to dodge; those who use fossil fuels would immediately pay a higher price
-
every penny raised by carbon tax is divided equally between a country’s citizens (a practice called ‘tax and 100% dividend’)
-
people who have big cars that guzzle fuel, and huge homes, will lose out because their tax dividend will be eaten up by their fuel use
-
but most folk will be richer, gaining much more in dividends than they shell out on fuel costs
All of which serves as a seriously strong incentive to cut down on fossil fuels.
The Nurse feels a carbon tax would be much more effective than protocols like Kyoto, which don’t go far enough to disincentivise fossil fuel use, let alone incentivise responsible behaviour. And she’s not alone. Carbon taxation is supported by NASA scientist James Hansen as well as a growing number of experts across a wide range of disciplines.
Free money is hard to argue with. And the thought of a tax that encourages individuals and corporations to co-operate is inspiring. The Nurse believes that carbon tax has an enormous hidden social benefit: give us all a real, tangible stake in saving our environment and we’ll happily run with the idea.
Terry from camping equipment wrote,
It sounds like a good idea – but implementing this complex tax system would be a nightmare.
Link | December 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The Nurse wrote,
You’re right… but probably less of a nightmare than if we continue to fiddle while Rome burns. So to speak.
Link | December 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Herb Shallcross wrote,
Look at what you’re proposing, and what they wanted at Copenhagen, put it in the context of cooling climate for the last decade, sea levels that have risen at essentially the same rate for three thousand or more years, and factor in the systematic fraud at East Anglia and NASA and the on-going corruption of the UN and it’s obvious that man-made global warming is a scam, intended to create re-distribution of wealth.
Answer me this. How does giving corrupt governments in Africa enormous loads of money repair the climate “problem”?
Link | December 27th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Herbert L. Shallcross III wrote,
The Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia conspired to destroy their original data because they have stretched it so far that it would be a terrible embarassment if it was ever compared to the data they’re using now. NASA has repeatedly been caught lying about their climate predictions.
The simple truth is that while pollution is still bad, man-made global warming is a put-up job. These special taxes, and climate reparations are only meant to hobble the developed nations.
The only ones who will benefit are the countries with the worst pollution control(and human rights)records.
Link | January 9th, 2010 at 4:15 pm