I think where the argument falls down is when politicians decide to tax on the basis of scientific evidence when we're still only at the theory stage and it is all still be debated.
You mean the carbon tax? Stupid thing, it only means wealthy companies and private persons are given a perfectly legal opportunity to go on polluting as before and keep a clear vest.
That thing with the carbon credit card might have ended badly, glad it was dropped.
That thing with the carbon credit card might have ended badly, glad it was dropped.
Undoubtedly. The government of the time had a whole series of ideas based on the so-called 'green' agenda that didn't make sense.
They proposed 'eco towns' which were to be situated miles from anywhere (requiring vehicles of some sort for transportation to the nearest employment) but these towns would not be made compatible with existing modes of transport. The towns would offer facilities that were certified 'green' but the town itself would be mainly built of concrete. Being that the argument for the eco town was that it was being built to cut down on CO2, they chose a material type that is a huge contributor to CO2.
I could go on all night with some of their barmy suggestions, but they essentially ruined the environmental debate in the UK by insisting that everything required a tax or huge amounts of money spending on it. Another no no was land-based wind turbines that nobody wanted, were proved to be less effective than the offshore wind turbines and would cost more than they were worth to install, but they went ahead with them anyway. Even the long term gains had doubt cast on them.
Until a reasonable argument for resource management and pollution reduction is agreed within democratic societies, there should be no extra taxes, but there is nothing wrong with politicians debating some of the methods we can use in the near future to help our countries. Unfortunately they're too busy pandering to big business over copyright laws so they can fill their own pockets.
