Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 27 2008, 9:57 PM EST (current) | creelinda | 1 word added, 73 words deleted |
| Jan 27 2008, 9:55 PM EST | creelinda | 370 words added |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
The carbon tax being pushed by Al Gore and Congressman John Dingle is seen as highly regressive by some Greens as it will place a disproportionate and unfair burden on those least able to bear it - people of low and modest incomes. With many Michigan citizens already struggling to afford to heat their homes and buy gas even to get to and from work, proposing such a tax seems elitist and totally disconnected from the reality most people live in. Those people who would be hit hardest are the working poor in Michigan's rural areas - a sizable area of the state.
If the idea of the carbon tax is to cause cosumersconsumers to use less fossil fuel, then that aim is already being accomplished by the skyrocketing costs consumers are facing. To further increase the price for everyone makes no sense - unless it is actually meant to be a tool to increase government revenues, an unworthy reason to punish the most vulnerable members of society.
There are better ways to nudge Americans toward a sustainable energy future.
Over-consumption is as much a root cause of biosphere deterioration as the burning of fossil fuels. To get this important point across, luxury energy use taxes could be levied on gas-guzzling passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs, as well as large boat, snowmobile, and ORV engines. Second homes and homes over a certain size could also be subjected to a luxury tax, as well as many other frivolous wasters of the earth's fossil fuel resources.
A less regressive carbon tax on industrial emissions, such as that passed recently in Quebec, hits coal, oil and gas corporations and gives an incentive to these companies to switch to alternative energies. This could afford some protection to consumers during this time of transformation, since the carbon-producing industries might decide to absorb much of the extra cost, rather than passing it on to consumers, in order to be more competitive. Greens value both "ecological wisdom" and "social justice." As we seek to move toward a sustainable, decentralized energy policy based on earth-gentle alternative energies, we must not abandon our commitment to be a voice for those who usually suffer most during times of economic transformation.
If the idea of the carbon tax is to cause cosumersconsumers to use less fossil fuel, then that aim is already being accomplished by the skyrocketing costs consumers are facing. To further increase the price for everyone makes no sense - unless it is actually meant to be a tool to increase government revenues, an unworthy reason to punish the most vulnerable members of society.
There are better ways to nudge Americans toward a sustainable energy future.
Over-consumption is as much a root cause of biosphere deterioration as the burning of fossil fuels. To get this important point across, luxury energy use taxes could be levied on gas-guzzling passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs, as well as large boat, snowmobile, and ORV engines. Second homes and homes over a certain size could also be subjected to a luxury tax, as well as many other frivolous wasters of the earth's fossil fuel resources.
A less regressive carbon tax on industrial emissions, such as that passed recently in Quebec, hits coal, oil and gas corporations and gives an incentive to these companies to switch to alternative energies. This could afford some protection to consumers during this time of transformation, since the carbon-producing industries might decide to absorb much of the extra cost, rather than passing it on to consumers, in order to be more competitive. Greens value both "ecological wisdom" and "social justice." As we seek to move toward a sustainable, decentralized energy policy based on earth-gentle alternative energies, we must not abandon our commitment to be a voice for those who usually suffer most during times of economic transformation.
