1. Focus on real problems. The supposed dangers of nuclear power are nothing but scare stories to frighten little children. The effects of global warming are real and tangible. And don't blame the Alberta oil sands for global warming. The problem with using hydrocarbon fuel for SUVs isn't where your gas comes from. It's where it goes; out the tail pipe.
2. Consider what actually works rather than sticking with ideology. People don't want a carbon tax, so consider alternatives, like regulation. For example, a condition of the license for a coal plant is to have a replacement in progress.
3. Small steps. Canada failed in its Kyoto commitments because of a lack of effort to reduce hydrocarbon consumption until the last minute, when it was too late, to meet these commitments.
What can the governments do to stomp out the bogyman? Nothing. Same with the contrived climate crises.
It doesn't exist. It never did and it never will. Only in the minds of evil men with enslavement on their minds.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
The things that governments are trying is a bit like trying to bail out a sinking liner with a teaspoon. Although burning fossil fuels adds to the problem, most of the carbon gases in the atmosphere are the result of humans and other animals breathing and farting. The problem has arisen because in the last 10,000 years, we've removed 75% of the world's trees and the only real solution is to put them back. We have the technology to turn deserts into forest, but it would cost a huge amount of money - nearly as much as the world spends on arms every year.
In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality, a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure.
There are many options open to government, none of them perfect, but below are the two most commonly discussed options.
To confront parties with the issue, the economist Arthur Pigou proposed taxing the goods (in this case hydrocarbon fuels), which were the source of the negative externality (carbon dioxide) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the goods' production to society, thereby internalizing the costs associated with the goods' production. A tax on a negative externality is called a Pigovian tax, and should equal the marginal damage costs.
An alternative government policy to a carbon tax is a cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emission levels of GHGs are capped and permits to pollute are freely allocated (called "grandfathering") or auctioned to polluters. Auctioning permits has significant economic advantages over grandfathering. In particular, auctioning raises revenues that can be used to reduce distortionary taxes and improve overall efficiency.
In most instances, firms pass the costs of a carbon price onto consumers. Studies typically find that poor consumers spend a greater proportion of their income on energy-intensive goods and fuel. Therefore cost increases in energy tend to impact the poor worse than the rich.
Studies by Metcalf et al. (2008) and Metcalf (2009) consider the possible distributional impacts of carbon taxes in the United States. The 2008 study considers three recent tax bills introduced to the US Congress. The taxes themselves are highly regressive, but when revenues from the tax are returned lump-sum, the taxes become progressive. The 2009 study looks at a carbon tax combined with a reduction in payroll taxes. It is found that this combination can be distributionally neutral. With an adjustment in Social Security payments for the lowest-income households, the carbon tax policy can be made progressive.
Currently wind power is cheaper then both coal and nuclear, but still more expensive then gas. There are problems with wind power as well. One of them is that when the wind blows electricity is cheaper to produce using wind power then even gas and the fixed costs of conventional electricity plants will still have to be payed, increasing the cost of electricity on days when the wind doesn't blow as producers will have fewer days over which to recoup those costs. Ironically, this will be an incentive to build even more wind turbines...
keep putting up taxes until nowone can afford to go to work , the human race will die out, and the ice cap will be saved , hip hip hoory
What can various Governments around the world do about Global Warming and Climate Change to prevent it getting worse/help it get better?
