The reason the debate is still going on, is because there is no conclusive evidence either way as to whether humans are having an effect on the environment to the extreme at which some say.
The assumptions you make where you seem to know the science inside and out are based on no facts.
Now on to the issue of taxing. While I don't agree with taxing people based on an unproven science, I can understand the concern. The Earth is certainly heating up, and no one knows wether we are to blame or not. Personally I think it is an overreaction.
Response: I don't disagree that the Sun is in a hot cycle. And I meant no offense with this post. But what I am saying is that just because the Sun is in a hot cycle, that doesn't mean that humans aren't having an aggitated effect on it. I have never purely believed that humans are solely to blame for the environmental issues of today. But I certainly thing that our use of fossil fuels, coupled with the Sun / Earth warming cycle, is having an effect. Neither side will budge on this and give a little to the other.
2007-03-12 00:35:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by trevor22in 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This whole global warming thing is here and it is a concern to all of us, its just our bad luck that polititians of all shades are slavering at the mouth thinking up more ways to tax the surfs and to fill their own coffers and pockets.
As one rightly said its us lot in the real world that will suffer the extra taxes the rich will not notice it.
What needs to be put to our governments is the question why can't they think up changes that do not rely on dipping into our wallets.
1st off ban the sale of normal lightbulbs
2nd Build mono rails in all our towns and cities and ban buses.
3 limit 2 cars to every household
4 reduce and scrap any form of fuel that causes emmissions making electric and go over totally to sea, wind and nuclear.
Do you not get the feeling that if we let things keep going the way they are in about twenty years time us real people will have to bow and doff our hats when a rich person passes us in the street.
2007-03-12 10:11:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not a scientist so I don't know the scientific answers but I do know that when I was a kid I could swim in any river including the one I lived near (( river lea)) which is/was used for comercial purposes .
These days you cannot risk swimming in any river in the world because of the pollution (( man made ))
In some cities in America there is a permanent haze overcast and the same in japan and china .
We ( us humans )) are killing the planet .
We are like a film of corruption on the face of the earth and if we dont do something about it the planet will just shrug us off and start again .
2007-03-12 08:08:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by shannow5858 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are so many differing reports on global warming,its difficult who to believe. I lean towards the NO argument.As you point out,pollution is not good for the environment,but I believe this Government is jumping on the bandwagon and seeing an opportunity to get yet more taxes.
Here is another reason...........................
Gordon Brown last night opened the door to a multi-billion pound new tax on tourist air travel to raise fresh cash to fund his ambitious goal to provide debt relief for the world's poorest nations.
At yesterday's G7 summit in London, chaired by the Chancellor, the Treasury agreed to consider proposals from the French and German governments for a new tax on aircraft fuel as a way of helping Africa.
2007-03-13 19:25:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a bogus distraction. If they were serious about making flying more green, they would do the following: help Boeing and Airbus to develop cleaner planes and fast, force airlines to buy the latest planes since they are the cleanest. Piling on tax with no connection to the problem is like the stupid high fares on the Tube that actually go into the general tax revenue. It is BS.
2007-03-12 11:18:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bob M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Car usage causes more CO2 than flying...so I have heard..
So why not just bring in a law limiting the number of vehicles registered to each private address in the UK to a maximum of two.
Kill 2 birds with one stone...so to speak.
The government do not get accused of ripping us off with stealth taxes and the planet gets a chance to breathe for a while.
The taxpayer will be happy not having ever increasing taxes...The government will be happy that they are making a valued contribution to combat global warming.
Unless, of course, it IS all about taxes..
2007-03-12 09:40:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by knowitall 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you've answered it yourself.
It's just a way of making money.
Just think if the government admitted that it was not CO2 causing 'global warming', there would be thousands of jobs lost, also all that lovely tax - you can't tax the sun for shining.
This is why no one mentions alternative ideas. If it makes money and can make us look good in the process, it must be right!
2007-03-12 07:39:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Stephman01 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The earth as been subject to change for millions of years long before the jet engine,but had this government been around at the time they would probably have taxed donkey droppings at two groats a time.Anything to line their pockets.
2007-03-12 09:41:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by geoff t 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The last time the sun caused a temperature change it took around 5000 years to happen. The current rise is expected to take around 100 years. If you don't know the science then maybe you should do more than watch one programme on the subject.
2007-03-12 08:58:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by marineboy63 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you're pour, shut up and walk. Otherwise, get into your Rolls, drive to the airport and hop...onto a 1st class seat to WhereverIPayForIt..... We love democracy, and we all know that G.Brown will use the money on eco-friendly alternatives...Such a good man...God bless him, he will save the planet
2007-03-12 10:06:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pelayo 6
·
0⤊
0⤋