Over at the the Economist's View they have a small discussion whether or not a a tax, emission standard or market is best. I think that an emissions standard for the fuel is not a bad idea. Yet, I have to say that I think that a tax would work best overall and they note some areas where the tax would be great - power generation - but would have minimal impact on gasoline consumption.
What do you all think?
Anyone?
BTW, I do think that $25/ton is too low. However, you would have to incrementally introduce that tax no matter what.
What do you all think?
Anyone?
BTW, I do think that $25/ton is too low. However, you would have to incrementally introduce that tax no matter what.
1 comment:
I agree that we should pay taxes to protect the environment, but I am not sure it is the best solution. I guess it would be cheaper and more efficient to inform the general public about the climate change situation and about the causes of the phenomenon. It's no use to have just a small circle talking about global warming, having them go to conferences on the subject, paying fly taxes and have the topic discussed in a small group. I prefer informing people on the causes to have them evoid future errors. I have recently read on www.1ocean-1climate.com about the naval war being the cause for global warming and I must say the thesis seems very logical for me. I think more and more people should see it.
Post a Comment