The British Govenment plan to introduce very stern green taxes to cut CO2 emissions. These include duty on carbon based fuel, and specific taxes an low-cost airlines.
Why doesn't the government ban the sale of cars with carbon based engines, and stop the electricity producers from using carbon based fuels. You could give them plenty of time, say 10 or 15 years - but surely this would force the organisations that can make a difference (the car manufacturers and the energy companies) to act.
They did this will catalytic converters in the 80s/90s so why not with carbon fuels?
What do you think - or is there a better option?
2006-10-31 00:04:24 · 16 answers · asked by mark 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
it is a very good idea. The problem is that the government are attacking to small picture without seeing the bigger one.
No one would use these energy inefficient products if they werent on sale in the first place.
If all packagin was biodegradable, then everything could be recycled from the household waste. If all the consumers were offered was eco friendly products then that is what they would have to by.
It is right that we need to stop this hapening at the source rather than the end of the line...the consumer.
if all manufacturers were made to become energy efficient in their production lines, and if all products were changed to stop carbon based fuels being used so regulary, then maybe, just maybe, we would be having this problem.
you are right about the whole issue. if we petitioned to have the government tackle the source of the problem for a long term gain, rather than a quick fix, temporary method. we might get somewhere nearer to reaching the targets set for us in the Kyoto agreement.
Right on dude!
2006-10-31 00:14:24 · answer #1 · answered by Emma B 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, it's not a particularly bad idea, but I'm sure you know the reason already, companies have a lot of vested interest in the whole motor/oil trade, and these are the people pulling the governments strings. This whole green tax situation is laughable really, all of a sudden a top economist says that our economy is going to get worse if we don't tackle the global situation re carbon emissions etc., and people act like it's new news. I've been saying this for 15/20 years, we'll have a healthier economy for everyone if we start living a little more in tune with nature, and get rid of these massive corporations. Any government that really cared about the planet and people would have been brave and put their foot down years ago. But they don't, do they, they're short sighted and more concerned about their own power and their own pockets. F*ck 'em!
2006-10-31 08:12:22 · answer #2 · answered by punkrockdreadlock 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
i think it is too little too late
why not try to get the other types of fuels up and running
electronic cars that run on solar powered car parks
for one and set up a public bike hire thing already in use in some Europe city's these get people active witch helps the fitness of the people and the green house
as well as employment to set it up and maintain the bikes and tracks
by taxing the air lines you are taxing every one people do not like that as we know they will only charge more to the customer
if you don't already give tax benefits to sular hot water intstalation
or lpg convertion in cars
we can all reduce admition
we only don't as it is cheaper not to
i thing we would all care a lot more if there was easy ways that cost less
2006-10-31 08:26:37 · answer #3 · answered by Zara3 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why? Got a better way?
We're learning that ethanol isn't the "answer." It costs way too much to produce, is not as efficient as gasoline, and uses way way way too much valuable water to produce.
Hydrogen fuel cells? What makes you think they will be perfected in 10-15 years?
What else is in the works?
By the way, man doesn't wreck the environment as much as many non-scientists profess (Al Gore, for example). Volcanos over the past 30 years have thrown more cloroflorocarbons into the atmosphere than man could in 500 years!! If you are concerned about the environment, ban volcanos. :)
2006-10-31 08:13:33 · answer #4 · answered by K_Man1998 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
From a PR point of view, noble as it is, I don't think people would vote for it. The general public don't like out right bans on stuff.
I think you have got to have some incentives to encourage people towards certain types of behaviour - making better use of public transport, encouraging cycling/walking short distances and energy rating cars/ power suppliers like they do fridges.
2006-10-31 10:58:22 · answer #5 · answered by Athene1710 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds nice until you realize that not every nation on earth can agree on anything .
We can not even get the top ten polluters on planet earth to accept that a change is needed .
Feel free to suggest all you want but real change will not happen until a huge problem occurs .
The melting of polar ice is creating shorter trade routes across the top of the world and governments are arguing over control of the routes .
Instead of being shocked at this melting they are figuring and arguing over who will get what part of the newly opened routes and fishing grounds .
I venture to say that until the plant life on earth begins to suffer and crop production begins to fail ,that we will do little more then discus this problem .
2006-10-31 08:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, if they do those things we'll have fuel for the ice age scare that is only 30-50 years away (when a different set of nimrods want government funding).
2006-10-31 08:12:04 · answer #7 · answered by ML 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
According to the scientists who are expert in this - We do not have ten years!
If we do not effectuate immediate steps to prevent the halt of further erosion of this issue in five years we will be living in a much different world than we are today - then it will only get worse.
2006-10-31 08:44:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the auto manufacturers are responding to consumer's requests for cleaner air engines and do not need to be bullied by the government. The beauty of a free market is that it works. The downfall of government involvement in a free market is that it destroys freedom of the consumer and the manufacturer.
2006-10-31 08:13:12 · answer #9 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i agree tax the manufacturers
make the bad products so expensive no one can afford them
that will stop people using them or to get the old ones repaired
no more fridge mountains and tv and old computers if they were to expensive to replace people would hold on to what they have got and value what they had instead of the throw it away and get new attitude of today
2006-10-31 08:46:55 · answer #10 · answered by steve50 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋