And you have what evidence that this rapid, radical forced reduction in CO2 output is likely to happen anytime soon?
It’s not, but the taxing or costing of the emissions seemingly are, which has an immediate impact on the economy and may well have unintended consequences beyond the scope of the intent of the tax in the first place.
Sarkozy (I heard on my way in) is imposing a carbon tax on everything and every one in France. Petrol will go up about 24 cents and heating oil about 19 cents per gallon (or, I assume about 4.75 cents a liter). This will be ‘refunded’ according to the story to those who can least afford the tax but the story intimated that the tax not be refunded to the ‘rich’.
The idea behind the tax is to awaken people to the problem of carbon emissions, so they say. However at the consumer level, the technology simply does not exist for a person to become completely carbon neutral.
Further, there was no plan for the new revenue stream, there is nothing (at least in the story) laid out regarding the use of the funds for new research, it’s just a way to increase revenue in a time when revenues are falling, without the ‘guilt’ associated with taxing the little man, “we’re saving the planet with your help” or; “we’re taxing the tits off you and telling you it’s going to save the planet.”
Fills me with :dubious:
Same difference, given that the costing mechanism is cap-and-trade. What’s your evidence?
This sentence is especially stupid.
We can’t reduce crime to zero. We still have police, courts, and prisons, because it continues to be extremely helpful to reduce the amount of crime.
It’s true that there are currently no CO2 mitigation schemes that would take significant chunks of CO2 out of the air at a reasonable cost. However, if it is more expensive to release CO2, then less of it will be released (I don’t see how people can argue that it will hurt the economy while at the same time claiming it will not help emissions – even if the processes are not made more efficient by a carbon emission tax, less economic activity will mean fewer emissions.)
Also, it is not as if environmental impacts are a complete binary – absolutely no change on one hand, or a global catastrophe affecting billions on the other. Every ton of CO2 emitted has an incrementally worse effect on the well-being and wealth of certain people (for instance, those living by a coastline.) Paying a cost equal to the damage done to them for use of the common good (air) into the public coffer which could be distributed back to those most affected by climate change is one solution.
There are a couple other solutions to it, of course one of which is banning CO2 release entirely, which would likely have a worse immediate impact than minor levels of flooding and climate change. Another would be an entirely market based solution whereby each emitter would pay each and every other person on the planet directly for permission to pollute. I kind of like that one. Who will volunteer to set that one up?
As an aside, I see no problem with treating your pet sources of CO2 the same as anyone else’s. (Although depending on the way the CO2 scheme is set up it might cost more to administer than would bring in in revenue for such small sources.) CO2 cylinders are tiny compared to gasoline sources of CO2 so if the same tax is applied that would be applied to gasoline, the extra tax would be correspondingly low.
Evidence of what? The reduction in emissions? There won’t BE one, at least not until the tax on emissions is so high that the market will no longer bear the increase in the price of the commodity. There is only payment to someone for the privilege of polluting (indulgences). Cap and trade seems to be akin to the unregulated deriviatives market and really only serves to make a different set of people wealthy with the accidental consequence of kind-of helping the environment or making people feel like they are.
Apples and oranges. CO2 isn’t going to rob me, beat me up or steal my car and is therefore not an emergent threat. By and large, it is agreed that CO2 emissions are bad, however there is much confusion amongst the masses about just how bad they are and how much danger we’re actually in. There is little to no dispute about robbery, assault or carjacking being very bad and very dangerous if not deadly in an immediate sense.
Further than that though, the primary reason the police, courts and prisons exist is not the prevention or reduction in the amount of crime, that’s what the laws are for. The reason those three sectors of law enforcement exist is to respond to crimes, investigate crimes and try criminals with the accidental consequence of the reduction of crime. True crime prevention, like any other kind of prevention, is expensive and difficult and frankly, no one wants to be a part of it, at least until they become a victim, and even then they’re weak on it.
The point in the original sentence was meant to convey that; today it costs more to BE ''green" than it does to not be. Which is the point, I know, in raising taxes or forcing the purchase of ‘credits’ or caps, but, for instance, if I need 3 light bulbs and CFL light bulbs cost $4.00 each and a regular bulb costs $2.00 for a pack of four, I will buy the regular bulbs. Now make them both cost the same, and I will buy one CFL at a time, dispose of it in a landfill and in a way negate the net effect of the CFL by dumping mercury into said landfill. However, slowly eliminate the incandescent bulbs, make the CFL’s truly green and affordable, and I’ll put them all over the place. If you can’t do it right all at once, do a little bit right until the entire job is done.