1. Try to read and to reply in other threads. You can give others, including women, a chance to know you.
2. When you start your own threads, think of some idea besides men and women. Example: You ask, What is your favorite food for summer? Or ask, Is it better to rent apartment or buy your own home? Or anything, to talk with people. Women in the west have great freedom to choose a partner, and want to know him first before they choose. So you must be patient.
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).
I know nothing of Australian politics. But I can assure you, whenever any new source of government revenue appears, it always ends up being spent as general revenue, whether it is counted as such or not. Even if it is specified as destined for a specific department, it merely replaces other money for that department, which then gets spread through the other departments. It's just like you or me: we have a certain income, and if another $20 a month appears that must be spent on groceries, that only means we've saved $20 on groceries, which will now be spent on the utility bills or the car payment or whatever else we have to deal with. (Except that you and me, unlike governments, don't constantly have constituents clamoring in our ears, demanding we spend more on this that and the other.)
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?
Dagosto Forum Posts (3,076)
I'm gonna have to try some of those, sound like fun.
RE: what do you not know?
Find out yet?