What alternative have we got in tackling global warming other than Green taxes?

Answer 1

Am I the only person to be concerned by the growing politicisation of the phenomenon now called "global warming," and the possible band-wagons and gravy-trains which will almost certainly result from it?

Not only are there huge amounts of money being thrown at the problem already, there is the further implication that "green taxes" will be the blunt-instrument used to tackle a problem which, although observable, is by no means scientifically proven one way or the other. Philsophically, the western-world has long-since harboured the concepts of order, management, state intervention and the supremacy of the body-politic; affectionaly known as "representative democracy."

Compare this to nature itself; a seemingly wayward, random, chaotic and uncontrollable entity of staggering complexity and variety, to which politicians now believe they can "make a difference."

If we consider that there are 1.5 million earthquakes per year around the globe, with a major event every three weeks, and 1,500 electrical storms taking place at any one time, as well as major volcanic eruptions occuring periodically, it is fairly obvious that the forces of nature are not only immense, they are violent, destructive, absolutely unstoppable and unalterable, whatever way people care to vote and whatever the claim of politicians.

Even if credit is given, and credibility awarded to those who now cite man-made CO2 emissions as the largest cause of undeniable global-warming, they cannot lobby nature, which accounts for the majority of such emissions. Although the following figures would have to be cross references and verified, it seems that they may represent a reasonably accurate picture of the whole, in that no less than 57% of CO2 emissions come from the surface of the sea, and 38% of emissions come from respiration. As an absolute total, only 4% of CO2 emissions come from the combined might of transport, power production, cement manufacture and general industry. Thus, any possible political intervention is limited entirely to the 4%, plus another 1% for the loss of rain-forests and changes of land-use.

Consider therefore a reduction in the burning of oil and coal of 50%, and what we would get, is a mere 2% reduction in CO2 global emissions: hardly the stuff of ecological revolution, and yet a figure which would radically change the lives of each and every person on the planet in some way or other.

In reality, the politicians would be delighted to think that they could reduce emissions by 10%, which would make virtually no difference to the overall CO2 emissions: perhaps accounting for an overall reduction in global CO2 output of just 0.4%.

On the other hand, a single major volcanic eruption, whilst initially pumping vast amounts of CO into the atmosphere (which then combines with additional carbon to become CO2) may contribute to global greenhouse emissions, but would then have a considerable cooling effect by way of solar-dimming, as dust particulates in the higher atmosphere reflected solar radition back into space. In the case of an eruption such a Mt Helena, this could produce a chilling effect lasting 2 to 3 three years at least.

Once again, the best efforts of mankind are regularly and completely dwarfed by the enormous forces of the natural-world, over which no-one has control, and which at any time can bring disaster and famine.

Then there are additional factors; some of which remain obscured by a lack of rock-solid evidence. There is the dangerous presence of methane under the sea, varying degrees of solar activity, periodic meteorite strikes and an apparently self-regulating mechanism which our planet appears to display to a considerable degree; the methods and manner all of which are beyond our control, let alone our predictive analysis. One cannot produce a computer simulation for periodic random events, when science relies upon replication and the consitency of available data.

Global warming may be a fact of contemporary life on earth, but do the scientists have a suitable answer, and should fear of the unknown dominate the political landscape?

If politicians are so concerned about global-warming, as they claim to be, why do they support globalisation, when that involves shipping things half way around the world?

Odd though it may seem, taxation is possibly the LEAST effective
measure which could be thrown at global-warming, because it would merely slow things down ever so slightly, for the reason that savage taxation would cause immediate economic disruption, with the further implication that any "green" tax would have to be phased in very slowly and carefully.

On the other hand, if all manufacturers of goods sold were forced to ensure that their products had a working-life of at least ten years, the effect would be dramatic within 3 to 4 years, and at very little cost, as industry adapted to quality of goods rather than quantity of goods, and people themselves turned their backs on the throw-away consumerism of to-day.

Answer 2

If everyone does their bit it all adds up - recycle what you can, buy organic foods, use public transport or low/zero emission vehicles, turn off lights, conserve energy etc.

If everyone did these things then we would use significantly less energy and have less impact on the environment.

It would be even better to impose restrictions on an industry level, and encourage development of technologies such as the electric car (which the oil companies prevented)

Answer 3

Do you honestly think paying taxes will help the problem? I read that even if we all stopped using cars today and all factories turned off it would be too late, the damage has been done. I do not think we should give up, but if any government is serious about solving this problem, they need to empty their pockets first before taking more away from the average Joe.

Answer 4

All we have to do it wait.....for in a few short years the oil will run out and then global warming will be but a happy memory.

Answer 5

Green incentives, inivation and technology advances in carbon neutral manufacture and cut back on global travel by air are things that need to be done to save our planet. Taxes alone don't cut it.

Answer 6

Yes. At least when you give money to an oil company you get something in return. When money goes to the greens you might as well just burn it because you will get nothing in return.

Answer 7

green taxes would help in a small way if they were part of a larger, globally co-ordinated plan and the money was ring fenced and actually spent on projects which are aimed at combating global warming. at the moment green taxes are just public relation exercises by governments who wish to get themselves some 'green' credentials. in some ways president bush is being more honest than people like blair. bush openly opposes any thing being done to prevent global warming, while blair bleats on about the environment but his policies have the exact opposite effect. blairs backing for cosmetic and fraudulent projects like 'carbon credits', which are just licences for corporations to take taxpayers money without actually reducing the total global CO2 output shows that he is really just a posturing hypocrite. here are some of the things that need to be done in conjunction with green taxes that may help level out greenhouse gas production and ameliorate some of the damage to the environment. the trouble is no political party in a democracy would put them into effect, no electorate would vote for them, and they would need to be global and i don't think it would be a very pleasant world to live in.
1. impose restrictions on family sizes, especially in the industrially developed world and redistribute the population from areas with surplus population. this should be done to manage the quantative reduction of the industrial nations economies without affecting its quality. and at the same time redistributing economic growth to less developed areas.
2. making it less of a global economy and localising pattern of food production, employment and aquiring materials. make commuting less economically viable and necessary by allocating employment locally, restricting consumption of of carbon hungery products and socially re-engineer our society in such a way that we live, consume and produce locally. make the use of cars and truck unviable and unecessary in everyday life and use more fuel efficient public transport. restrict global tourism.
3. spend green taxes on blue sky science as well as just technology. i'm afraid that with our present level of scientific knowledge, technology will play only a small part in preventing global warming and for that we need to know more about the underlying processes of the natural physical laws of our universe. the trouble is that since the 1980s we have been doing this less and less, it doesn't make a predictable profit you see, and as publicly funded research gave way to privately funded research scientists were redirected from fundamental research into making gee whizz technology that sells. also what fundamental research is being done is being kept secret because it is commercially confidential, science needs a open 'market' for sharing knowledge, at present knowledge is not being shared as it commercially valuble,therefore the pace of fundamental science has slowed down. i'm afraid all we have managed to do recently is improve technologies use of existing scientific knowledge. making things smaller and faster. we need a quantum leap in scientific knowlege and a whole range of technologies steming from that new knowledge before technology can play any meaningful part in helping global warming.
none of this will happen. politicians would not propose it, people wouldn't vote for it. i, personally, wouldn't like it. so we, or our children and our grandchildren will have to live with global warming. unless global warming runs away to such an extent that the earth ends up like venus, which i don't think will happen, mankind will not be destroyed. but i don't think our present global civilisation will survive it. we may be headed for a new dark ages in the years to come. but who cares for now, at least we're having fun.

Answer 8

I would like to see massive investment in public transport and incentives for motorists to dump their cars and do more walking!. Also faze out the old light bulbs rapidly. Return to recycled paper packaging and carrier bags. etc:
No. The government want to change this into a money making exercises and blame the people for the ornamental mess we are now in.

Answer 9

Global Warming is not going to happen anytime soon, so you don't have to worry about it. Maybe your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will have to, if we are still around by then! But the scientists are probably making it up, just like evolution.