Climate change and taxes?

I don't understand this mentality that people DON'T want to go green. It's not that people don't want to go green, it's that right now, it's the more expensive alternative unfortunately.

Green products, electric cars, hybrids, solar panels, wind turbines, biodegradable products, organic foods, etc. It's a change that a lot of people need to make, but in many cases, it costs even just a few bucks more than what people have been used to all their lives.

Taxes won't do anything. They never have and it never will. It becomes a slush fund and does nothing more than feed the endless bureaucracy of filling up more cabinet positions under the guise of caring for the environment. Our government is using our environment as a pawn to pass legislation favorable to themselves and their constituents. I'm blown away at how many people can--after watching the last 10 years of our government and 2 administrations in action--honestly believe that taxes solve anything, or that they're the fastest way to do so. I think it's an abhorration that people are willing to look at their world, environment and livelihoods fall apart as pollution overtakes us and then pass it off so easily for someone else to fix, and fix slowly and inefficiently at that. It's ignorance-is-bliss mentality at it's best.

The best and fastest way to make a change--in my opinion--is through the market. The term "green" itself is nothing more than marketing and look how far it's taken us.

What made you pay more attention to the environment first? Taxes? Or a commercial touting the benefits of using VOC-free paints for example?

What's making Proctor and Gamble create green cleaning products and alternatives? Taxes? Or the amount of profit they can gain by selling the public what it really wants in the form of greener products?

What are you more likely to do? Something you WANT to do, or something you're TOLD to do?

So in short, yes, I think EVERYONE is behind getting greener as long as it doesn't cost us more money, OR, if it does cost us more money, that it's at our discretion and not at Uncle Sam's while he pilfers our wallets.

I thought that this was a wind up...I read it yesterday .Apparently you are also supposed to plant a tree to offset the child's carbon footprint!!.Well I already have 3 kids so obviously I am biased but didn't they try something similar in china......its called Communism! And if the crazies actually got their way what would happen to all those extra children (in china they were sometimes left to die). I have heard some rubbish about climate change but this really is taking the p iss! Lets start with the gaseous nonsense that comes out of these idiots mouths if they want to tax yet something else.

On thing which could be done would be only giving planning permission to build any new building if it is fitted with an alternative energy supply, whether this is solar panels, geothermal heating or wind power etc. If a builder wishes to build a large number of properties or large business premises then they have can only do so if they include an environmental method of power sufficient for them.

I know the argument is that it would make the cost of building much more and the selling price higher but I believe a lot of people would be willing to pay the higher price in order to not face any energy bills. In addition like anything the more a product is mass produced the lower it's price.

Giving grants and/or tax cuts/breaks to those who are willing to change over to alternative fuel supplies.

Increasing education on how individual families and businesses can reduce their power consumption, most homes waste large amounts of electricity, leaving lights on, electrical equipment on standby, not using low energy light bulbs etc. etc.

Energy saver bulbs typically use around 80% less electricity than normal incandescent bulbs, so you bring in a law that all public lighting, government offices, premises which use outdoor or overnight lighting, businesses etc. have to change to these bulbs.

All conventional pearl, incandescent light bulbs have been banned by the European Union to slash energy bills and carbon dioxide emissions, some have complained but experts claim that replacing the worst-performing lamps with today's best available technology will reduce domestic energy consumption for lighting by 60 per cent in the EU, equivalent to saving 30 million tons of CO2 pollution every year. Most of us Europeans think that even though the new bulbs cost more, although they do last a lot longer is a price worth paying.

Bring in regulations on manufacturers of electrical products to reduce the energy they use, such as lower temperature washes or shorter washes in washing machines and dishwashers. Equipment which switches off or goes into a low energy usage when not being used etc. Some manufacturers already do this (see link)

The more of our food that we can produce and sell in it's locality helps, so look for ways to encourage local farmers to sell their produce in their locality, set up more local markets and pressurize or even if necessary legislate that supermarkets to buy their produce locally where it is available, every item we buy has a carbon footprint, t to buy apples from the other side of the world when they are grown just down the road is insane but if the supermarkets will not sell them then we do not have the choice.

I think the biggest problem in America is the lack of education. Many Americans still seem to deny global warming is happening or if they accept the evidence refute the link between mans energy use and global warming. it might help if more emphasis is put on the savings each individual, family or business can make as well as the environmental benefits, especially in time of a recession.

I'd support it even with taxes. Although I am a 'leftist', believe it or not I don't like paying taxes. But I also realize that taxes are necessary to provide certain assurances. For example, to pay for police and fire departments, safe roads, clean air and water, safe drinking water, and yes, I'd be willing to pay taxes to reduce the anthropogenic influence on the climate.

That being said, there are of course alternatives. Despite the rhetoric from the political right, as Modest Proposal notes, a cap and trade system is not a tax. There are other ways to incentivize clean energy technologies, but if you're not paying for those incentives somehow (i.e. taxes), then you're just increasing the national debt.

But if we lived in a perfect world where we could reduce emissions, create green energy, reduce pollution, etc. for no cost, I would of course be all for it.

It's not a matter of "if," there are ways to do that. Tax incentives, reallocating subsidies (can't just pull subsidy money out of thin air though - raises taxes, or our deficit), cap and trade, etc. Not many people like the last option because it would cause an increase in the price of the regulated good (be it gasoline prices, utility, so on), but it actually does not raise taxes.

I like the idea of tax incentives myself. Perhaps including a few of the other ideas that have been brought up along side. Of course that means that the government would have less funds to work with but I'm sure the population would enjoy that above having to pay more.

It would be great if all the noise was true and something was done about it. The problem is, anything the politicians come up with is always a problem caused by man. And the only way to fix it, is to raise taxes. Then when they collect all the money, said problem suddenly isn't as bad as was presented. And then interestingly enough, the large amounts of money is unaccounted for, but no one pursues its whereabouts or looks at any records-keeping. This is sure to happen with the carbon tax.

Sure. If some environmental group wanted to put solar panels on my house for free I will support it 100%. It doesn't mean that I will believe there propaganda but if there solutions to a non problem are not doing any harm then I have no problem with them. Of course that will never happen because the whole reason for the global warming scam is to make money not solve a problem.

Yea. But that's been going on already since 1975 when they introduced the catalytic converter.

Yes, one way is to use natural gas, which I have discovered is coming along. They have been building natural gas (CNG) refueling stations all over. I looked this up about 18 months ago, and there were only 5 stations in the US. Here is map of the current CNG station locations.

http://find.mapmuse.com/map/cng/28.59,-82.07499999...

There is also nuclear.