Do you support a carbon tax ? (48)
kidatheart: It'll never happen, besides, there are other V8 engine manufacturers on the planet. Some of them even make good ones.
True, but a Mustang without a V8? Remember when they tried it in the eighties?
jvaski: I believe new automobile engine size and emmissions should be severely regulated to an international standard in every country manufacturing autos !
Let's get rid of your Waverunner!
Blues63: True, but a Mustang without a V8? Remember when they tried it in the eighties?
Actually, they started with straight 6 cylinder engines in '64, and continued right through to the '90s with 4 and 6 cylinder engines, as well as V8s.
I like my 4 cyl diesel Golf, not a great car, but better than anything made here in the last 30 years.
jaigoulding: I believe pollution and climate change throughout the world is an urgent problen. And everyone should have an opinion on actions that should be taken by Governments now.
Yeah, right, 'Global Warming' is the biggest crock of sheet. Let's go outside the box for a moment.
Uhuh, instead of mandating more emission controls w/higher utility bills, IMO, scrap the bag houses and other Best Available Control Technologies, lower stack heights, and mandate utilities install A/C in everyone's home to use when there is an alert for poor ambient air quality?
This alternative could be a heck of a lot cheaper and everyone benefits, especially if the utilities give homeowners energy credits for A/C use.
---- IMAGE REMOVED because photobucket.com no longer allows embedded images ----
its all about money,
if it was not why do they keep talking about bringing in a
FART TAX !!!! on cows...
when you consider theres only a fraction of animals on this planet then there used to be,,
and why keep chopping down trees,
did you know the new light bulbs we have to use,
you know the ones better for us,
they are so toxic we are not supposed to throw them in the bin,
if it was not why do they keep talking about bringing in a
FART TAX !!!! on cows...
when you consider theres only a fraction of animals on this planet then there used to be,,
and why keep chopping down trees,
did you know the new light bulbs we have to use,
you know the ones better for us,
they are so toxic we are not supposed to throw them in the bin,
Dagosto: Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. It's so damn complicated!
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
My feelings exactly.Everyone worries about themself, naturally, but it is really industry that will be penalised, and like it or not, we need big business to keep employment rolling...
leigh2154: The tax should be bracketed according to usage!
You are no doubt aware of the TVA (there's a couple of movies about it, etc...) and out here the same thing: In Oregon, and I believe other rainy Pacific states, homeowners are charged for what is commonly called "runoff". Okay--it rains, my eave gutters (which are required) pour the water back out onto the yard, street, etc... and quarterly I am charged with a "runoff" fee. It is such a bone of contention, it is frequently cited in real estate contracts! Now, I am willing to be educated here, but is it really tenable that homeowners pay for it raining?
Dagosto: In theory, it might, given a free-market economy. Company A produces lower emissions, gets taxed less; company B produces more, gets taxed more. This would give company B an incentive to lower its emissions.
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
Could't've said it better.What we need to get rid of is consumerism and the neo-bourgeoisie mentality that goes with it. Both are like a highly addictive narcotic, only this addiction destroys the environment while undermining the will to act and think differently. The great irony is that the so-called "developing" world is far easier to fix in this regard than the so-called "developed" world, which would have to be painstakingly dismantled and reassembled.
gsmonks: What we need to get rid of is consumerism and the neo-bourgeoisie mentality that goes with it. Both are like a highly addictive narcotic, only this addiction destroys the environment while undermining the will to act and think differently. The great irony is that the so-called "developing" world is far easier to fix in this regard than the so-called "developed" world, which would have to be painstakingly dismantled and reassembled.
Many families, and often enough, individuals, own: Two homes, three or four vehicles, a motorbike or two of some kind, an RV, a boat, a skidoo or two, snowmobile, riding lawnmower, rototiller, heat pump or air conditioner, to start off with. ("Gee honey, I just don't get this energy crisis" she says to her husband). 
rohaan: You are no doubt aware of the TVA (there's a couple of movies about it, etc...) and out here the same thing: In Oregon, and I believe other rainy Pacific states, homeowners are charged for what is commonly called "runoff". Okay--it rains, my eave gutters (which are required) pour the water back out onto the yard, street, etc... and quarterly I am charged with a "runoff" fee. It is such a bone of contention, it is frequently cited in real estate contracts! Now, I am willing to be educated here, but is it really tenable that homeowners pay for it raining?
Is this the same as sewage fees, which is based on how much water you use that then goes down the sewer. We have that.
rohaan: Many families, and often enough, individuals, own: Two homes, three or four vehicles, a motorbike or two of some kind, an RV, a boat, a skidoo or two, snowmobile, riding lawnmower, rototiller, heat pump or air conditioner, to start off with. ("Gee honey, I just don't get this energy crisis" she says to her husband).
well, that would not be me, or most of the people I know. Some, but not most.
taxes are unjust and i support none
irishrebel75: taxes are unjust and i support none
Hey, how's it going with the no smoking? Just so you know, (interesting detail to your post) half of the cost of a pack of smokes here - about 5.05--is tax (2.55 state & federal taxes). At least you won't have a "sin" tax after quitting smoking!rohaan: Hey, how's it going with the no smoking? Just so you know, (interesting detail to your post) half of the cost of a pack of smokes here - about 5.05--is tax (2.55 state & federal taxes). At least you won't have a "sin" tax after quitting smoking!
the price is about the same here depending...but still haven't had a smoke yet, so thats good for me
The concept of carbon tax conjures up the image of a dog going around in circles biting the hell out of it's own tail.
For large corporations...yes
More Threads
your favorite topic?
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Kultur-multur
the way you look
s*xual skills
Why is this shameful?
men's perspective towards women
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
wanting beyond need
Ladies
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
It'll never happen, besides, there are other V8 engine manufacturers on the planet. Some of them even make good ones.