2006-09-02 05:04:26 · 6 answers · asked by runlolarun 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You can empirically test this!
The EU has had a CO2 emission trading scheme since 2005. The EU is now growing very strongly (France and Germany best for many years). The scheme has hit electric utilities the hardest - and they are making record profits.
Its a complex situation - and dangerous to draw general conclusions from - but this is the best example their is.
2006-09-02 05:13:10 · answer #1 · answered by Ouseman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here in California, the CO2 global warming issue is all about creating new Taxes to help fill the coffers of the already rich and famous. It gained support because it's only going to tax the Big Business and not the common people. Once again we have been fooled by the idea, that we will not be effected by it. Wrong!!! We will Pay for it in the end. Taxes always get passed down to the End User!
In the 1500's to the 1800's millions apron millions of people died every year from global cooling (read history books), now we are being feed a bunch of do-do about this global warming and people are lapping it up like street idiots.
Co2 emissions are if fact saving our lives, and we are producting them right now at safe controlled levels. (yes we have to be carefull how we effect our Earth) This issue is all about tricking the poorly informed into paying a new tax.
Did you know that a space shuttle launch puts more hydrogen in the upper mesosphere accounting for a greater and longer lasting global warming effect with each launch than we create with all are coal burning plants.
Hydrogen does not belong there!!
The local public has been very poorly informed with very miss leading data and the real facts have been pushed aside.
Why?
Because you can not create a new Tax base from the real facts.
More Taxes equals less freedom to live our everday lives.
2006-09-02 12:37:27 · answer #2 · answered by dam 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While increasing the standards for CO2 emissions would be costly for the existing corporate entities, what many haven't taken into account is this:
1.) These costs would invariably be passed on to the consumer, and the corporations would be making darned sure that the consumer knew where the increased costs came from.
2.) There would also be new areas of job creation as technologies were developed and implemented to make these changes more effective and cost-efficient.
Overall, I honestly believe that it would - through the creation of new jobs and fields of research and developoment - be better for the economy in general and business in particular.
2006-09-02 12:25:01 · answer #3 · answered by pblcbox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it would become a universal standard that all businesses would have to deal with. A restriction applied to all is (relatively speaking) no restriction at all. It would force US businessess to develop greener practices that would only improve the desireability of our products overseas and therefore our competitiveness. If we fail to innovate our economy will end up like the US car industry since the 70's.
2006-09-02 12:07:17 · answer #4 · answered by Charles D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything that reduces maximum profits, including things like salary, medical benefits and taxes, is ultimately bad for business.
Working to improve air quality is not bad for business, if your business includes breathing.
2006-09-02 12:09:11 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's the problem today, the government thinks if it is bad for business, and not if it's good for the environment
2006-09-02 12:06:53 · answer #6 · answered by tsar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋