Carbon kid tax

If you are a true believer the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is don't procreate.

"A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences looked at the link between policies that help women plan pregnancies and family size and global emissions (the study also looked at aging and urbanization trends). The researchers predicted that lower population growth could provide benefits equivalent to between 16 and 29 percent of the emissions reduction needed to avoid a 2 degrees Celsius warming by 2050, the warning line set by international scientists.

But the benefits also come through easing the reduced resources that could result from climate change. The U.N. IPCC report notes the potential for climate-related food shortages, with fish catches falling anywhere from 40 to 60 percent and wheat and maize taking a hit, as well as extreme droughts. With resources already stretched in some areas, the IPCC laid out the potential for famine, water shortages and pestilence."

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...hange-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/

Now you may ask how can we implement a low birth policy and the answer is a carbon kid tax. This carrot stick approach would give tax breaks to those who had no children and would impose a per child carbon tax on people that did have children. So what do you true believer think? Good idea?

 

I'll make a proposal.

You stop acting like an insulting pouty child in every trolling OP that you create, and instead you start acting like an adult.

In return, we'll start treating you like an adult.

Deal?

 

So I guess you don't like the idea of a carbon tax on kids. Why not? As I showed in the OP lowering population growth is the single biggest thing you can do to lessen mans carbon output. Why would you be against this?

Hmmm, seems like I hit a nerve, I'd be a bad dentist.

 

The lack of response from warmers has me baffled. It's such a great idea that would cut that nasty human C02 output by 20%. I just don't understand why the warmers are not saying well done Joseph, great idea.

 

And who is going to pay this tax? We can't get a large percentage of the US population to pay for basic necessities for their kids now without supplying financial aid. Doing this just within the confines of the USA is worthless, as the third world supplies most of the population growth.

We are adding 83 million per year to the world population.

US average birth rate is 1.83 per woman, but it is heavily slanted to woman in the lower income brackets,

"Birth rates, vary widely based on income. Single women between 15 and 44 from the lowest income bracket (>100% of the federal poverty line, $11,770) in the US are five times more likely to have a child than women in the highest 20% of incomes (>400% of the poverty line). "
http://www.businessinsider.com/sexual-activity-and-birth-rates-in-america-2015-3

So who is going to pay the additional tax on having children?

Joseph, yes you need to promote 55 million more abortions annually in the third world or worldwide

 

The aim is to limit population growth, not entirely eliminate procreation.

Carbon taxes are generally for things that are entirely beneficial to make/use more of, balancing the profit with additional costs. Having children is already a financial cost which people (generally!) don’t have for profit so any additional taxation isn’t going to make a massive difference.

You also have an all too typical America-centric view of world-wide issues. You can’t address population growth at a national level alone. It’s a bigger issue than that.

 

Overpopulation analysis, mind you, is a load of bobbins. Look at the discriminatory damage created? Coerced abortions; public goods in return for sterilisation. And, as the developing world suffers, the hyperconsumption from the rich North continues. Shame on the gits pushing that agenda!

 

Typical enviro extremist concept - blame it all on humanity, and the solution is to eliminate humanity. Childish.

 

Typical rant. Make stuff up and scream hallelujah!

 

The proposal would not directly target carbon emissions. Rather the tax would work to reduce birth rates. That would certainly reduce carbon emissions, but it change other aspects of society as well. You'd need to weigh the pros/cons of those other dependent variables as well and make sure the net effect is something acceptable.

It seems like it would be easier and fairer if the tax were structured more like a use tax. Those who use more pay more. It would be a win for your side because then you could really stick it to Al Gore.

And like flewism I question whether those most likely to have kids could/would pony up the tax.

 

Any "reduce birth rates" is really "let's consume as we do and let's blame the developing world". Its pathetic.

 

Seriously? You just built a strawman so that you can tear it down by calling it "childish". Surely you see the irony here.

 

The irony is that you explain a problem - humans ruining the planet making life difficult for humanity - and then provide an answer of removing humans from the planet.

 

If it isn't overpopulation, its overconsumption. Either way, your point of view is destroyed.

 

The same people who now get tax breaks for having children.

 

A carbon tax would reduce not eliminate population growth.
If AGW is such a desperate problem and we are in the verge of making the planet unfit for humans how can you worry about economic concerns? What use is a good economy on an uninhabitable planet?
As for my exocentric view of America aren't you guys always saying we need to lead the way in fighting global warming? What happened to that?

 

More people more C02 pumped into the atmosphere. Do the math.

 

If you are not a cult member I agree, if you are a cult member you are being very hypocritical

 

If the warming situation is a desperate as you guys claim there is no economic concern worth weighing. What good is a healthy economy on an uninhabitable planet. As for your carbon use tax more kids use more carbon producing technology from the minute they are born or even before that as you drive mom back and forth to doctor appointments.

 

Overconsumption? You mean like food, clothes, housing, heating, AC, transportation sitting at your computer saying we are warming the planet? Stuff like that?

 

Start with Veblen, then progress to the likes of Galbraith. Good luck!

 

Food is conspicuous consumption?

One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

https://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708

 

It certainly can be. Bit obvious really.

 

It isn’t intended to. It’s an entirely different tool to address a completely different issue. Neither industrial pollution or rapid population growth are exclusively problems due impact on the climate.

I don’t think it is on the verge of anything but I wasn’t expressing economic concerns anyway. I was simply saying that your proposal wouldn’t work.

I’m not one of the guys you’re finding it convenient to presume I am. I’m just a guy responding to your idea and explaining why I don’t think it could work. If you just want to play “Who can spout the most political rhetoric!” I’m not interested.

 

Can be yes but everyone has to eat and the more mouths the more food production which accounts for 30% of man's C02 contribution.