Climate Added Tax (C.A.T.)

[gettingchilly]

Notice to Brown/Obama and of course all you far more intelligent blog readers.

Now anyone that reads my occasional posts will realise (no z's here) that I know that CO2 has a minuscule effect on climate and mankind's minuscule effect on the climate is indeed minuscule.

However,

I would be willing to pay a Climate Added Tax (C.A.T.) alongside Value Added Tax (V.A.T.) if it were used in a responsible way. Interestingly enough, the UK government today announced that we are going to legally require UK Governments to meet silly carbon targets, but the way they are going to meet these is much more interesting. We need to "insulate tens of thousands of homes".

Why insulate homes in a warming climate?? Why not build pagoda's ?

Well, it is clear that they understand that the world is cooling and whilst I agree that the (perverse) way to combat Global Warming is to insulate thousands of homes against global Cooling (It's obvious really isn't it).

Now if the (C.A.T.) was used to insulate homes when it was cooling and the sun was quiet, that would be a good thing. When it was warming and the sun was active, it could be used to build flood defenses and educate people about skin cancer.

All you have to do to get both sides on board is to admit that CO2 was a red herring and has a minuscule effect, and money will not be wasted by anarchists destroying the economy, or wrecking power stations as the world cools, or trying to capture our 0.03% CO2 by spending billions in carbon capture.


Would you pay (C.A.T.) if it was used wisely??

[bd]

No, for one thing it definitely would not be spent wisely. For another, I can pay to insulate my own home. Why send the money to the government when I can do cheaper myself. Lastly I have very little sympathy for people who build on flood plains.

[jtom]

My opinion from the beginning was that the earth was either going to get warmer or colder - it always has - so our efforts should be to take action which would help us cope with either situation. Besides added insulation, new houses should be built using 2x6s instead of 2x4s to allow for thicker insulation.
Since the goal is to seal a house up, then we need air scrubbers, not just air filtration systems, to maintain healthy air inside. We need to have both heat-resistant and cold-resistant crops available. There are many other steps we could take.

BUT, all of this could be done by private industry and individual effort. If the government wanted to promote it, they could offer tax incentives. A sure way for it NOT to be done efficiently, timely, and cost effectively is for the government to do it. So here's a big NO for a CAT.

[gridley]

Apr 20, 2009 21:37:27 GMT gettingchilly said:

Why insulate homes in a warming climate?? Why not build pagoda's ?

Actually, if we assume air conditioning (not sure if that's common in the UK?) then insulation makes some sense even in a hot climate. Insulation is helpful any time you are trying to keep an area at a different temperature than the outside, whether you're trying for hotter or colder.

Also, remember that one of the new mantras is that increased CO2 causes more "extreme" weather (such as blizzards), so the insulation will be useful even in the winter.

Oh, and I generally oppose taxation and government spending (we've got too much already), but capital expenditures with long-term benefits (such as added insulation) are something I at least won't fight against. In this case I'd just shrug and save my energy for more important issues.