A carbon tax would probably be the "least-worst" policy to reduce so-called greenhouse gases.
It would allow for much more flexibility than any regulatory, or subsidy programs. (The least-worst way to pay for CO2 reduction subsidy programs would be from a carbon tax; rather than from, say, income taxes.)
Mainly, it would drive home the costs of reducing CO2 output. People think that governments can wave a magic wand and produce the "benefits" without any costs -- it's all a matter of being a "believer" and not a "denier". When people feel the effect in their pocketbooks; they might start challenging the sensationalized claims the GW warmists make.
Those who favor a cap are the like of GE which does 10 BILLION in wind turbine and alternatative energy business, and also power companies who have a heavy part of their electricity being generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas and other less carbon intensive methods. They see a huge competitive advantage by requiring those companies relying on coal to clean up or pay carbon taxes. This is a sham, just like the ethanol/ADM cabal is foisting on us.
posted on 02/01/2007 12:15:30 PM PST
The purpose of government is to secure our rights, not to inflict pain on the populace.
posted on 02/01/2007 12:18:57 PM PST
(Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson