Carbon taxes are not the answer

Anonymous · January 30, 2013, 04:00:51 PM

This is using Australia's example with C02 taxes. I believe man is contributing to global warming, but the solutions the world community have chosen to combat it are not working. They are only making life more expensive for their citizens. There are more efficient ways of dealing with climate change rather than the tired old cap and trade, carbon taxes and meaningless C02 targets.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Why-the-carbon-tax-doesnt-work--pd20120821-XD2BS?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen">http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... ottliebsen">http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Why-the-carbon-tax-doesnt-work--pd20120821-XD2BS?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen

There is a small problem with all the efforts the world has undertaken to reduce carbon emissions – they are not working to reduce emissions to any where near the amount the carbon community believes is necessary to avoid global warming.

A group of Nobel Laureates and other top experts who combined to form the Copenhagen Consensus believe that the world's emphasis on emissions reductions via carbon pricing and similar mechanisms, is simply not going to work. They propose a cheaper but more radical global solution.

The Copenhagen Consensus was formed in Denmark to bring together top global knowledge to determine the best way to allocate funds to solve particular problems. They have applied their methods to a number of global problems. For example, they concluded that the most economic way to reduce global poverty was to make sure that pre-school children have sufficient nutrition. Without pre-school nutrition, adult capabilities are greatly reduced and they are much less productive members of the community.

When it comes to carbon, they concluded that because electricity had become essential to the current living standards of a vast number of people on the globe, simply pricing electricity at higher levels would not make an enormous difference to usage.

Australia has one of the world's largest carbon taxes, which is being combined with big rises in power costs. Accordingly, we are a global leader in trying to reduce emissions via electricity pricing. The Copenhagen Consensus believes our strategy is not economic and while electricity consumption may reduce, the cost of that reduction will be out of proportion to the emissions cuts.

The head of the Copenhagen Consensus, Bjorn Lomborg, came to the ADC Hayman Leadership Retreat and explained that the Copenhagen Consensus believes there is a better way to cut emissions – spend more money researching renewable power generation with the aim of reducing renewable electricity generation costs to levels that are lower than carbon.

Currently both wind and solar do not have economic storage systems, so in the case of wind there has to be expensive back up carbon sourced power generation. Bjorn Lomborg sets out his views in the attached video.

From my point of view, he is one if the first people I have heard who makes sense on carbon. Certainly putting up electricity prices in Australia by 30 or 40 per cent (only about one third is the carbon tax) is not going to vastly lower emissions.

What it does do is lower the standard of living of many Australians and is now causing them to challenge whether the carbon/climate links have validity.

There are a number of renewable research projects here and around the world which are getting closer to substantially lowering the cost of renewable energy.

If the Copenhagen Consensus is right then that's where the world needs to focus if it is to be serious about carbon and climate.

Anonymous · January 31, 2013, 09:05:47 AM

In Alberta we have one time environmental fees on consumer electronics..

How does that improve the environment?

Don't they still end up in a landfill at the end of their lives?

Romero · January 31, 2013, 01:19:16 PM

~~Quote~~72 million tires recycled since the program began in 1992.

Albertans have recycled almost five million units of computer equipment and televisions since the electronics recycling program began (keeping hazardous materials such as lead, mercury or cadmium found in circuit boards or cathode ray tubes out of the landfills). This includes more than 1.48 million computers, 890,000 printers, 1.39 million monitors and 1.02 million TVs that have been diverted from landfills.

These millions of units have been dismantled into 87,640 metric tonnes of metal, plastic and glass that has been shipped into the marketplace for manufacturing into new products.

Since the paint recycling program's inception in April 2008, 9 million litres of waste paint (or 11,000,000 kgs.) has been recycled.

Over 1,130,000 aerosol containers have been recycled.

http://www.albertarecycling.ca/about-recycling/quick-fact-sheets">//http://www.albertarecycling.ca/about-recycling/quick-fact-sheets

And that's just Alberta.

It definitely improves the environment, and it provides material for new product. We can't just throw away tires, electronics and paint like it's regular garbage. It's such a huge waste.

Romero · January 31, 2013, 02:09:07 PM

Think about bottle recycling. Can you imagine what it'd be like if bottles were never recycled and what a huge waste of resources it would be? Nobody thinks bottle recycling is stupid. It's plain common sense.

Recycling electronics makes even more sense. It would be crazy to just throw away those reusable materials.

Landfills cost millions of dollars to build and operate. Recycling saves taxpayer dollars.

Romero · January 31, 2013, 03:34:13 PM

Electronics recycling programs have been a huge success all over the world and they save taxpayer money. Paying extra fees sucks, but if someone buys a product why should everyone else have to pay for its recycling? That money's going to come from somewhere. Shouldn't the consumer pay for it instead of the government?

Yeah, too much electronics end up in dumpsters and landfills but it would be much worse and much more expensive if not for recycling.

Anonymous · January 31, 2013, 08:26:08 PM

So, the fees are intended to pay the cost of recycling, but some products still end up in landfills?

Romero · January 31, 2013, 09:04:24 PM

Sure, like with paper and bottles there is still going to be a lot just thrown away. But thanks to recycling there is so much less waste and it's improving every year.

Anonymous · January 31, 2013, 11:33:12 PM

I know that market based approach is not always the best. This is particularly true when there is a monopoly or the company chosen by the government are also their financial backers. However, we know that our representatives collecting a new tax and telling us it's for our benefit is usually a stretch too.

I know companies where I live that are making a solid profit from recycling. They would still make a profit if shoppers were not charged a disposal fee. I also think there should be incentivization to encourage recycling of e-waste. I would extend it to other things as well like bedframes for example.

The system we have will remain. I don't see a citizen revolt over a fee most of us don't pay that often. It's not one of the more hated taxes, but a more market-oriented alternative would be less costly and produce better compliance.

Anonymous · February 01, 2013, 09:00:46 AM

~~Quote from: "seoulbro"~~I know that market based approach is not always the best. This is particularly true when there is a monopoly or the company chosen by the government are also their financial backers. However, we know that our representatives collecting a new tax and telling us it's for our benefit is usually a stretch too.

I know companies where I live that are making a solid profit from recycling. They would still make a profit if shoppers were not charged a disposal fee. I also think there should be incentivization to encourage recycling of e-waste. I would extend it to other things as well like bedframes as an example.

The system we have will remain. I don't see a citizen revolt over a fee most of us don't pay that often. It's not one of the more hated taxes, but a more market-oriented alternative would be less costly and produce better compliance.

I wasn't really protesting about those fees, I was curious about what they did with our used computers and tv's...

The fees are not that high yet, so I am not complaining...

We are buying a new LED tv this year, so our attitude may change when we get to the till....it won't last long though.

:)

Romero · February 01, 2013, 07:41:24 PM

"Government" isn't always a bad word. If the Alta gov didn't set up the recycling program, it wouldn't exist. There would be tens of thousands of tonnes of extra crap overfilling landfills and taxpayers would only be paying more to deal with it.

The website states that the fees go directly to the program and not to government.

Anonymous · February 01, 2013, 08:36:46 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Fashionista"~~
~~Quote from: "seoulbro"~~I know that market based approach is not always the best. This is particularly true when there is a monopoly or the company chosen by the government are also their financial backers. However, we know that our representatives collecting a new tax and telling us it's for our benefit is usually a stretch too.

I know companies where I live that are making a solid profit from recycling. They would still make a profit if shoppers were not charged a disposal fee. I also think there should be incentivization to encourage recycling of e-waste. I would extend it to other things as well like bedframes as an example.

The system we have will remain. I don't see a citizen revolt over a fee most of us don't pay that often. It's not one of the more hated taxes, but a more market-oriented alternative would be less costly and produce better compliance.

I wasn't really protesting about those fees, I was curious about what they did with our used computers and tv's...

The fees are not that high yet, so I am not complaining...

We are buying a new LED tv this year, so our attitude may change when we get to the till....it won't last long though.

:)

You should be bitching. How much of that money actually goes into recycling? How many snivel serpants are employed with these new taxes? Are you sure that none of that money isn't being streamed into paying for other government expenses? Do you think those fees will remain the same? Do you think the number of people employed to collect and adminsiter the program will remain constant?

Don't be so bloody trusting ffs!! Anytime a government tells you they need more of your money and that is for your own good you know you are about to be raped. Make noise, let the pricks know you don't trust them and it's another excuse to gouge you using the environment as an excuse.

Shen Li, it would seem you are making mountains out of molehills..

The fees are very reasonable and so is the cost of home and personal electronics today.

In 1990 my parents bought a large Sony tube television..

They had it until 2005...in less than 8 since they have gone through 3 flat screens..

People are buying more tv's along with desktops, laptops, I-pads, smart phones, digital cameras and so on..

Something has to be done about all that increased e-waste and there is only so much land available..

It's not 1990 anymore and recycling rules should reflect that..

DKG · June 27, 2023, 10:47:01 AM

Proportion and common sense are lacking.

News:

The best topic

Carbon taxes are not the answer

Anonymous

Anonymous

Romero

Romero

Romero

Anonymous

Romero

Anonymous

Anonymous

Romero

Anonymous

DKG

Lokmar

Berry Sweet

Herman