As I'm sure you must know, the coldest places on Earth, such as Antarctica, get very little snow. So since "global warming" refers to temperature, the criterion should be temperature-based, not based on snowfall.
So what if we lower taxes if global mean temperature goes down, and raise them if it goes up? That's fair, isn't it?
Actually, that's not a bad idea. We could implement a carbon tax that was tied to global mean temperature--those that deny global warming shouldn't have a problem with it, because they don't believe temperatures are going up. It would probably need to go up faster than linearly, though, because of the lag between actions and atmospheric response.
I disagree - The states in the north are some of the richest states in the country. The only fair thing to do is to increase the taxes on these rich states in the NE, North Central, and West so their money can be redistributed to poorer states in the south. States like California, New York, New Jersey are just paying their fair share in taxes.
Alaska has no state income or sales taxes and Hawaii and Florida get almost no snow.
Hawaii and florida are out of luck
Wouldn't that be fair?
