Carbon emissions tax

[Viagara]

I've also heard that enormous amount of livestock throughout the world farting all day long emits more co2 not to mention the human population

Driving past the squatter camps along the N2 on a daily basis, I can certainly vouch for that! On the other hand it is probably metane Methane gases more than CO2

And they are not taxed on that or most anything else for that matter

[BigWoodenSpoon]

it is probably metane gases more than CO2

and Methane as well

[Viagara]

and Methane as well

Ja, ja, Methane

[Blues]

bring on the carbon tax, other than through ppls wallet you'll never get them to change. it worked in europe, much more smaller and cleaner cars there now.
I'd even go further and tax any damage to the environment, especially industrial, like commercial fishing, deforesting and so on. let the producers of plastic pay for clenaing up the ocean garbage patches.
what the government actually will do with the money, is unfortunately a different matter. locally I'd expect bmw sales taking a rise...

Not my field of expertise, ...

agreed...

[joel]

Something else to ponder.
At or just before the middle of the industrial revolution a huge amount of pollution was being caused by the use of steam engines.
it was thought that to help reduce pollution, companies should strive to create more efficient steam engines. Which they did.

Unfortunately it is considered that while newer steam engines were more efficient, this efficiency actually created more pollution.
The reason was that as stem engines were getting more reliable, cheaper to run and efficient, people simply used more of them. No matter how much was gained on efficiency, there was more lost in the sheer number of machines being used.

The exact same thing is happening now.
We are being forced to develop cleaner burning engines, and as these are more efficient, we will sell and use more of them.

What is needed is a paradigm shift in technology, and we need to move away from carbon based energy.

Unfortunately there are so many vested interests in carbon based energy products (from cars, to power stations, and even plastics) that we are all told that we have to all learn how to use less carbon  so that it will last longer.

What should be happening is that alternate energy sources should be researched, and no I dont mean battery technology as batteries need to be charged and in this country this still means burning coal to get that charge.
These important developments dont get the research money they deserve as big companies cant leverage them into profit, governments dont make money out of fuel taxes etc, etc. And we as humans typically dont like change either.

[BigWoodenSpoon]

Spanner in the works here  

With the upcomingongoing hybrid and plug-in-overnight battery powered car invasion, they should be taxed even more   Think of where the electricity comes from to charge the cars , and the hazardous materials used in the battery packs  

and further to that, big industries get a considerably lower electricity tarrif than us joe-soaps do and yet they are the biggest consumers of it hence making a bigger contribution to emmisions, RAISE THEIR TAXES

[Stefan]

Spanner in the works here 

and further to that, big industries get a considerably lower electricity tarrif than us joe-soaps do and yet they are the biggest consumers of it hence making a bigger contribution to emmisions, RAISE THEIR TAXES

Another spanner,

It will raise production costs and inflation and the consumer will have to fork out more at the end of the month. Vicious cycle!

[BigWoodenSpoon]

2 more spanners 

I wonder if the airlines are being taxed ?

But I would hesitate to fly on a south african airline these days. I read an ALARMING article in the Cape times yesterday.

The required pass mark to become a commercial pilot used to be 100% (understandably), it has now been lowered to 40% to accomodate those who cannot cope with the difficulty of the course/training 

I've tried to find the article on IOL to link it here but mmmmmmm not to be found 

[Rodney_gold]

Well , when we breathe , we emit C02 - problem is , they can't tax us anymore cos there's nothing you can do to get blood out of a stone ....

[windshear]

2 more spanners 

I wonder if the airlines are being taxed ?

But I would hesitate to fly on a south african airline these days. I read an ALARMING article in the Cape times yesterday.

The required pass mark to become a commercial pilot used to be 100% (understandably), it has now been lowered to 40% to accomodate those who cannot cope with the difficulty of the course/training 

I've tried to find the article on IOL to link it here but mmmmmmm not to be found 

What a load of bollocks. I dont know where these idiots that call themselves journalists come from. It was never a 100% requirement and it isnt 40%. It has always been 70-75%. Yes the airlines are being taxed, not locally but globally on a carbon emissions tax.
Anyways getting back on topic. We are being taxed at R85 a gram for any vehicle over 120g/km. In Europe where they have a better quality of fuel, the norm is 2Euro per gram over 130g/km. If the intent was a true green tax, then it should be levied on the fuel to punish the older gas guzzlers and encourage newer cleaner vehicles and the goverment should introduce a law to make the fuels greener like europe. Additionally taxi's wont have to pay this tax, i wonder why. The bottow line is , its a soft source of easy income. To throw a spanner in the works, rumour has it they are considering a tax on second hand car sales as well.

[BigWoodenSpoon]

Additionally taxi's wont have to pay this tax, i wonder why. The bottow line is , its a soft source of easy income. To throw a spanner in the works, rumour has it they are considering a tax on second hand car sales as well.

any way to squeeze your 'nads into submission 

[Quint]

When you are trying to understand the impact of empirical data spread over more than one lifetime it become very difficult to remember what you wanted to do in the first place (typically how you would measure the effect of global climate change).

With that as a starting point i always ask myself what the impact will be if either side of the debate is NOT correct.  So bear with my ramblings for a bit...

If the guys saying that global climate change is merely a media hyped mechanism of scaring people into action are INCORRECT...
We will not have a habitable planet to live on (bummer) and in our greed/immediate satisfaction culture i would not want to be here or on the spaceship to the closest class M planet we can find 

If the guys saying global warming is a catastrophe are INCORRECT
We would have spent billions on making the human race more sustainable

So i may mind it is not a difficult decision which ever side of the fence you are sitting...