Carbon tax is a double edged sword

By JLBane

Being a bit of an anarchist on the quiet I’m not a fan of any taxation; after all we earn our money so it should be up to us what we do with it. I understand that hospitals need to be run, streets need sweeping and a whole host of other services need to be provided, but my problem with carbon tax is the idea of unfavourable escalation in the future.

What I mean by the concept of unfavourable escalation is that, for now, while the notion of only taxing industrial offenders is the aim, the system is open to abuse in the future and could lead to individuals being taxed if their carbon footprint is too big.

This is where the whole carbon tax system becomes a problem. Certainly bigger industrial companies have the financial clout to lean on governments or indeed usurp them as has been witnessed in an example I’ve used before. Margaret Miller worked for Monsanto and wrote a summary about a growth hormone which needed approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Miller completed the draft and then switched jobs, joining the FDA where her first job was to approve the Monsanto growth hormone now widely used in dairy farming.

It is not the individual citizen's concern to pay for corporate pollution

If a major industrial company became unhappy with the one-sided nature of a corporate only carbon tax they could easily sway government to extend the taxation to individuals who work from home and eventually a complete penalty across the board. Murmurs regarding taxing people for breathing have been heard, stating that people are producing too much carbon dioxide and it’s that level of stupidity and money-grabbing which makes carbon taxing a joke.

The food industry has been instrumental in passing the s510 bill in the US which has made life hard for smaller, organic companies to grow and distribute their produce – ironically citing that organically produced food has to go through more stringent safety tests than mass produced, hormonally enhanced genetically modified foods from less savoury producers.

That is another example of how the big boys win against the smaller groups and how corporate and political bullying ultimately lead to a decline in choice and good standards.

The other problem with carbon taxing is where the money garnered from that system is redistributed. If it was ploughed into alternative energy supplies like wind, solar and hydro farms (not dams) then it would be a good cause; reducing pollution two-fold and making for a much cleaner environment all round. The problem is that it’s hard to see that happening. It would be the right thing; the best thing, but history has proven that the best outcome rarely happens.

My view is a simple one; until carbon tax can be presented in a way that favours the every day people and punishes serial or over-polluters in the right way while promising to clean up the environment with more funding for clean, renewable energy and better ways to dispose of toxic waste materials without hurting the public’s pockets then it simply should not even be considered.

Join the debate on carbon tax and share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment.

Read about the s510 bill; the climate change blame game; and how 10% of the world’s arable land is now GM dedicated.

images: airnow.gov; glendell.co.uk