Many politicians are pushing the idea of a carbon tax - that there could be a charge for each unit of carbon emitted by a household (almost like a water bill, just not water.) The goal would be to reduce carbon emissions and to use the revenue to invest in new technologies. My question is if you would be willing to pay such a tax, and if so, how much would you be willing to pay?
2007-12-11 08:45:31 · 14 answers · asked by Yoni 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
It has been proven by the MIT (department for economic research) that the tax approach is not the most efficient.
The problem is the following:
* with a tax, you set the level of the tax but the result (quantity is unknown).
* with emission trading, you set the cap (known quantity) but the unknown is the price.
This second approach is more consistent with the fact we know about to which level we want to limit the CO2 concentrations.
Moreover we all share the same atmosphere.
So... question: if there is a 1% price difference between a green project and a coal project in India, can´t you just by paying this little difference make sometimes more reductions with less money than with the tax system at home?
Yes it makes sense and these are the so called CDM projects under the Kyoto Protocol.
2007-12-11 09:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Don't kid yourself thinking that politicians give a hoot about the future beyond their very own power cycle. One helluva lot of politicians will push like hell to impose carbon taxes across the whole spectrum of society and it will all go into their coffers. Many many years ago a New Zealand govt. hit the driver with a petrol tax. The excuse was; the money raised would be for roads. Bullshit; the money never went into roading but into the govt. consolidated fund account. Today the roads in NZ are crap and gridlock reigns supreme in all the cities. Your carbon tax aint going to do nothing. Companies pay for new technologies not politicians collecting taxes and it is them that should change the way they operate.
2007-12-11 11:01:39 · answer #2 · answered by Bandit 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely NOT! I am sick of Politicians using us Consumers to give Corporations more and more Profits, so the Corp's will continue to donate $$$ to Politicians!
What we NEED to do is make an "Excessive-Profit-Tax" on the danged Corporations that are nothing but PIRATES!
For instance, gas profits are astronominal... even though WE pay more and more and more. And Automakers refuse to spend any of their profit$ on fuel efficiency. Tax THEM and you'll suddenly see real changes!
Isn't it time to revolt?
We should BEGIN by voting OUT-of-office every danged politician - there's no difference between them, they ALL act for their OWN interests...and Hillary is the same as Bush - so don't kid yourselves about that! Actually, I believe Obama's BEST quality is his "inexperience" --- which simply means he is NOT one of them (yet)
2007-12-11 09:49:21 · answer #3 · answered by m.a.f. 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Karl Marx would be proud to see how many people are willing to pay taxes on unproven myths.
I'm amazed how many really want the government to control every aspect of their lives. I guess we really are heading into complete socialism after all.
Say goodbye to freedom.
2007-12-11 09:58:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO NO NO
corporations and rich people should pay the tax.
there the ones that got us her in the first place
corporations because they built the CO2 spewing junk
the rich because they invested in the corporation and if you invest in dirty tech your just as guilty.
fuel cells were invented in the 1839s
electric cars were first built in the1890s
we had clean rapid transit in the 1920s to the 1950s trolley cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_electric_railway
http://www.nuvant.com/education/who.html
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm
what happened to them
the big corporations killed them off because they did not make the profits the corporations wanted.
then because you could not patent old technology no corporation wanted it.
2007-12-11 13:25:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
When it comes to taxes, what you are willing to pay is of no concern.
2007-12-11 13:03:26 · answer #6 · answered by helltoo 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. There is no reason to tax carbon. Why not tax nitrogen while there at it. It has as much impact in the climate.
It's the Sun, not carbon that causes the climate to change.
2007-12-11 09:07:37 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
I'd want some more details before I'd go along with that.
I am ALL in favor of massive taxes on unnecessary SUV's. Not just that pansy little gas guzzler tax. I mean I want them paying an extra 30 cents a gallon on the gas for those things.
2007-12-11 08:53:24 · answer #8 · answered by Scott Evil 6 · 3⤊ 7⤋
If we do have one, it should be a progressive tax, just like income. I would pay if it went to renewables.
I'm with Scott on the gas-guzzlers.
2007-12-11 09:05:57 · answer #9 · answered by Richard the Physicist 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I'm willing to pay if I see the BIG emitters paying first.
2007-12-11 09:20:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋