Lord Chrusher wrote:Dutch guy wrote:Lord Chrusher wrote:Actually the carbon tax in BC is 6.67 cents per litre.
Supposedly the use of carbon based fuels has decreased in BC while their use in the rest of Canada has slightly increased.
A carbon tax is the simplest way of making carbon more expensive which is effective way of making people use less carbon.
Carbon tax doesn't work. People still need to drive to work, people still need to heat their homes. The tiny bit you can save by having the general public turn down the thermostat a bit or driving a few miles less is paltry.
Want to seriously affect the amount of carbon dioxides we produce? Build much more nuclear plants, stop international shipping of "small commercial products", stop building with concrete, etc. THEN you can get an effect. Joe public can generally do didly squat when it comes to saving on carbon emissions.
Not everyone has to drive to work. If they still want to drive they can drive vehicles that get a hundred miles a gallon. Houses can be made much more energy efficient and there a host of ways to heat or cool a building that do not use carbon based fuels. A high enough carbon price would make nuclear power plants economic, make air transport horrifically expensive and force a different way of making cement.
Making something expensive is the best way to get someone to stop using it. Likely the best way to introduce a carbon price as was done in British Columbia is to introduce it at a low price (say $10 a tonne) then raise the price at regular intervals (say $10 a tonne per year). Thus there is no sudden shock and people are able to plan since they know what the future price of carbon is.
Vehicles that get 100 miles to the gallon? In what universe do we have those?? Certainly not in our world. (And NO electric vehicles don't come anywhere near that either) Nuclear power already IS economic. In fact, it is the most economic way we know of making energy. It's just a "tad" difficult with the misinformed masses screaming their heads off at the supposed dangers of nuclear plants. Air transport is not something we should WANT to make horrifically expensive. Per passenger mile or cargo ton mile, air transport over longer distances has a VERY low emissions footprint, and the overall aviation industry is only a tiny contributor to carbon emissions.
There IS no cleaner way of making cement, so the only option in that regard is simply using less of the stuff or accepting the emissions coming from that industry.
Carbon tax is NEVER going to work. Because while it might encourage slight savings, it severly punishes those that HAVE to produce large amounts of CO2. Turning down the AC is potentially viable for joe public (but again, small potatoes, it wont have any effect overall) but it's not an option for a hospital. Or a fish processing plant. Etc.