What would you pay to turn the world green?

TheImportanceOfBeingIdle

Not that I would enjoy correcting a man such as yourself Martin but was it not 3,680 billion dollars? which equates to about £2 trillion. Which is only about twice the level of UK personal debt.

With regards to the question, I'd pay nothing more. In fact I'd like to pay less until the government can supply accurate figures to prove that we in the UK can actually make a worthwhile contribution to stopping the effects.
I'm just reminded of a Mr Richard Turpin. He used to rob people blind but at least he had the decency to hide behind a mask. Seems nowadays it happens under our noses and we can quite clearly see the purpotrators

Fran

I would pay the 4p in the pound. I would (maybe naiively) hope that it really was spent well on what it was intended.

Fran

going2die_rich wrote:

Once any sort of taxation is in place for pollution the amount charged will so easily move up.
Best to fight against the introduction of any green taxes rather than the amount.
Obviously those that are well off can afford the taxes while those who don't have much money to begin with will be taxed unfairly.
Eg. Taxing cars
- if you tax milage, you simply force poor families to let their kids go to school using public transport or walking. Since people are too soft in the head (i.e. always moaning about protecting human rights) to hang peado's and rapists then they are always at risk

Why assume the money gained would be used in the form of "a pollution tax"? It could be spent to ensure everyone's cars are greener.

What's that rubbish about hanging? How many people are raped on the way to school, that's just ridiculous and hardly an excuse for not walking if you live near a school. Besides don't most schools run school buses? Better public transport is the answer to that!

freelancemermaid

i look after the environment because of my selfish genes - it's the survival instinct - i'm not some hippy tree-hugger (not that there's anything wrong with tree-huggers or muesli-knitters or any other phrase used to write-off people who are trying to act on this essential issue), heck, i wear a suit!

i want to live and i'd like my nieces and nephews to live, so therefore i acknowledge that clean air; water; soil; etc are needed. these are provided by the ecosystems and natural processes of the planet, not by humans.

personally i'd like to see employment taxed at a much lower rate, or even not at all. taxes should be directed at any activity that threatens our food/air/water supply and that of organisms that share this planet with us. again i'm being selfish - for instance no earthworms = no plants, no plants = no breathable air... etc!

along with taxing the enviro-unfriendly actvities/goods, it needs to be made easier and cheaper for individuals to make green choices in their food, transport, housing, heating, etc.

cazrobinson

we are all being pushed to "save energy". which is fine - i do my bit.

but, what is really needed is legislation against the big giant pollutors: industry, transport and business.

until, the government can get them on-board, we won't get on/off switches on electrical items, we won't get fuel efficient family cars (speaking as a mother of three, who hates driving a 2.0 petrol engine), we won't get progress on climate change!

FarthingSaver

I have grown very cynical of politicians in my old age. I can just imagine the conversation.

GENERAL: "We are running out of bullets and our equipment is being ruined by the sand, Prime Minister. We need squillions more adding to our budget."

TONY: "I don't see how we can give you more without a public outcry. We are in enough trouble with the war, thanks to that very smart George Bush"

FLUNKY: "Prime Minister, why don't you increase taxes to pay for the war using the green issue as a smoke screen. You could bring in seriously high taxation and nobody from the public or parliament will object. You could perhaps allocate say 10% of the revenue for green issues and the other 90% you could spend on wars."

TONY: "What a good idea, but let's make it 5% for green issues."

Great Britain only directly causes 2% of the Carbon Dioxide emmissions in the world. The United Kingdom needs to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with carbon emissions in every sector of the country's activities, not tax the home owner and the motorist in the way that is being proposed.

pennyfiddler

I would not pay anymore until the government got other measures sorted first, i.e. my local council have provided me with 3 wheelie bins 1 for household waste, 1 for newspapers ONLY and one for garden waste, however if the lids are slightly open or the bin men think its too heavy they refuse to empty them, meaning I have to then use my car to take them to the refuse site, which I can't get to without sitting in long traffic que's cos most of the roads have unused cycle or bus lanes reducing road widths. I am fairly fit but couldn't cycle to the tip with a wheelie bin on me back.
As pionted out on a radio programme, the UK could turn all of its power off for 2 years, the carbon savings would be cancelled out by china and America within 12 months.
I would feel a little better if the real big culprits were making a proper effort to clean up their acts, cos it is the whole world that is being affected and not just the UK.

squirreltufty

Interesting that the poll isn't going the way of those who shout the loudest on this thread.

ManAtHome

Think it's going to cost more than 4p to save the planet - how's about a world average pay less than 2 grand a year (even that may be a high estimate). Or are we going to stump up the extra, then tell the developing world it's time to stop (ie we're all right Jack...).

smillie-world

Firstly there are several ways to look at this. Every motorist pays a tax per mile they drive. It's called fuel duty. The more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay. Simple.

It's well known the faster you drive the more you pollute. So, if the maximum speed limit is 70mph, why aren't vehicles limited to this speed? It would save on pollution, plus, it would prevent some lunatics from racing up and down the roads faster than they should.

Another point is public transport. I'm absolutely positive more people would use it if it was convenient, comfortable, and cost effective. I live in Keighley, and have recently started working in Halifax. I have considered public transport, but the most direct route involves several changes and two hours travel. The car takes thirty minutes. Why are there no express routes/services with public transport. In Keighley there are lots of people that commute to the surrounding areas, mainly Leeds and Bradford. There isn't one service that runs direct to either destination, with limited or no stops. It isn't because they don't have enough passengers because the normal services are crammed. Instead bus operators insist on taking the buses round every single back street imaginable. Why?
Then there is the comfort. The trains and bus seats are cramped even for an ordinary guy like me. They're cold in winter and red hot in summer. And have you ever been sat on a bus or train when it's pouring with rain, and someone gets on and squashes right up to you (because of the small seats). Not nice.
Then there is the cost, it just competes with the fuel I put in my car. Okay so I have to service and maintain my car, but at least it's never late, delayed, or never turns up, plus, it's right on my door step, literally.
Clearly public transport doesn't work well enough to get people to change. And yes, I spent several years travelling on buses and trains just to get to work.

It is also well known that aeroplanes are massive polluters, yet they do not receive such fuel taxes. Why? One argument is that they boost the economy. However, if global warming is going to create a massive 20% hole in the economy, then why not curb aircraft now? I don't fly because I can't afford to, yet I'll be expected to foot the bill by some other form of tax.

In our area we have recycling boxes. We do our bit to fill our box, but there is no financial punishment for those that don't do their bit.

Tax those that pollute, and tax them fairly. It is not acceptable to keep taxing everyone the same or blaming the motorist, when there are no adequate alternate solutions.