Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Tartışma komitesi listesi
Bu komiteye yazı yazma izniniz yok. Bu komiteye yazabilmek için minimum üyelik seviyesi Brain Piyonu.
AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHO ARE GOING TO CREATE EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS WITH A CARBON TAX DESIGNED TO DESTROY EVEN MORE AUSTRALIAN JOBS BECAUSE ITS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST
Of course, oil companies make no money at all when we use a lot of energy from fossil fuels. Then car exhaust fumes are perfectly harmless. As are fumes coming out of factories.
The reality is that the problem is not the carbon footprint, or carbon emissions. The problem is that we consume without measure, and we waste without measure. Many people try to recycle, use less, drive less, etc. But it is not enough because profits that drive consumes capitalism drive mass production, and that drives pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, ozone-destroying substances, etc.
The carbon tax is a very inefficient way to regulate the problem. What it is saying is that the consumer should pay more for products according to how much carbon dioxide is produced by those products and their manufacturing process.
Instead they should give tax credits to companies that invest in the reduction of pollution. If the capital gains tax runs at a certain percentage, that percentage should be much lower for companies that can prove that they have reduced the pollution produced during manufaturing, use and disposal of a product. In that way more of the capital would remain in the hands of companied that pollute less as opposed to those that pollute more.
There should be no "carbon credit trading" of any kind, because that simply encourages companies that pollute a lot to buy credits from those that pollute less. Companies that pollute more can simply buy their way out of the problem, rather than have an incentive to improve the manufacturing and design of their products.
Well, capitalism is all about profit and the legislators that are trying to address the problems of pollution have only one objective in mind: to make sure that the capitalists keep getting rich, whether by reducing pollution, or keeping it as it is.
> And what's wrong with carbon anyway? Nothing.
Would you breathe the exhaust fumes from a car? Would you move your family next to a big factory with a huge smoke stack bathing your house in carbon dioxide? And when carbon is released into the atmosphere, where does it go? Our atmosphere is a relatively closed system and gases released there stay there for a long time. I think that presuming that the problem is global warming is not quite accurate. The problem is one of generalized pollution and the effects it has on human health and the plants and animals. It is foolish to think that carbon dioxide is "harmless". If it were, people would have no problem breathing the exahust fumes coming out of their cars.
(sakla) If you want to greet someone in their native language try our Player's Dictionary, in the "more about languages" link under the flags. (pauloaguia) (Bütün ipuçlarını göster)