Reply With QuoteWhat I don't get is, why we have to pay carbon tax. Shouldn't the corporations who profit from putting out CO2 emissions be paying the tax.
The source of the error is this document from the WWF - this now contains a correction - undated! Having read the data as best I can I fail to spot the mathematical error that is said to underlie the incorrect estimate.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/hi...report2005.pdf
"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'"This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
What I don't get is, why we have to pay carbon tax. Shouldn't the corporations who profit from putting out CO2 emissions be paying the tax.
We would still have to pay, because the corporations would put up the prices of their products to cover their losses.Originally Posted by moltenentity
Nonetheless, there is a body of opinion that taxing oil, coal etc as it comes out of the ground would be a more accurate and fair way of addressing the CO2 problem. The difficulty is that such a tax would have to be applied consistently world-wide or it wouldn't work, and such agreement would effectively be impossible.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks