Carbon kid tax

You seem to be running from all your initial arguments.

 

Can be? Of course. So we are back to what we already know: we can't understand global warming without reference to overconsumption.

 

Wrong. The basic necessities of life are the primary cause of man's C02 output and food production is a huge one. More mouths to feed more agriculture.

 

Nope. It's the type of food production that is the issue. That is necessarily linked to overconsumption analysis

 

Not at all, you just misinterpreted my response as an attack rather than the information it was. The fact remains that carbon taxes have absolutely nothing to do with population so aren’t any kind of valid model for addressing population growth. Two separate issues, albeit with some (but not many) related consequences.

 

36% of them can't support their kids without the an additional tax, and need government money to raise their kids in a minimum standard environment..

So are we going to jail them if they don't pay this tax?

 

A carbon tax on children would do more than a carbon tax on gas which you guys seem to want. For every one less kid there's one less car on the road. No gas used at all.

 

All food requires agriculture. Kind of goes without saying huh.

 

It wouldn't be retroactive it would have to be on new births. It would discourage people from having children they already can't afford.

 

Too late..

 

Not if you be a fish eater..

 

I told you I'm not one of "those guys". Nobody will have constrictive discussions with you if you insult them.

 

Why focus just on gasoline though? Why not have a carbon tax on carbon? That would incentivize efficiency improvements in all industries that produce carbon emissions including transportation and agriculture.

I don't know...it seems more effective than taxing people based on the number of kids they have.

 

So fishing trawlers don't use fossil fuel. Then the trucks that transport the fish to market don't use fossil fuel? The stores that sell the fish don't keep the lights on and the freezers running? Feeding people requires fuel and lots if it.

 

We're you a believer before you brought kids into the world that need food and housing and clothes and in time cars and houses of their own?

 

Now who's the denier?

 

Gas was just one example. You can put a carbon tax on everything man needs to live in this modern world but those things will still be used, they would just be more expensive and used slightly less except by those who could afford the extra cost. They would still ise all they wanted. If you have one child instead of two you instantly cut the use of those things in half plus whatever conservation you do.

 

A child tax would incentivize the reduction in birth rates, but it wouldn't incentivize efficiency or conservation improvements. People might decline to have more kids, but they wouldn't necessarily change their own behaviors regarding carbon emissions because they don't have any incentive to do so. It's the same with industry. Companies don't have kids so they still get a free pass to do whatever.

The idea of a use-based tax just makes more sense to me anyway because it puts the onus of paying for AGW mitigation/adaptation on those that are causing it and in direct proportion to their contribution. It's a very targeted tax.

 

A targeted tax would slightly reduce C02 output per person over time while having one less person reduces their potential output by 100% and does so immediately. Then if you want a carbon tax on top of that on everything else people use you drastically reduce C02. It's not one or the other. Why not both? Is this a critical problem that has to be fixed very fast or not?

 

Yet that is not agriculture..

 

No because fer some reason humans die...

 

Anything but address the subject huh

 

No you were not a believer before you added more people to make more C02 spew into the atmosphere?

 

I was told holding in farts twas bad fer ya..

 

Obviously this subject makes you feel uncomfortable and probably stupid and hyporitical so if that's all you have to add to the conversation I'll move in.