"What a great site! I'm impressed by the great stuff you've pulled together. It merely confirms my long-held belief that economics CAN be interesting....
All the best"-
Charlie Wheelan,
aka The Naked Economist
So it seems as alot of you don't like the payment of students for grades idea- changing behavior through incentives. How about changing behavior through disincentives- taxes-if it meant a huge benefit to the environment?
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
the idea of taxing people for thier carbon output is a creative way to dicourage environmental pollution. if people have to pay a tax to drive it will discourage unecessary driving and therfore cut back on pollution. by the added income to the government through a carbon tax they could cut back on the income tax deducted from wages so the amount of money being brought home by people doesnt really change, but is distributed diffrently in a way that benefits the environment.
i think a tax on carbon output is great...if there are alternative solutions. if you can't afford to have a car to get to work, then public transportation should be made more redily available.
i also like the idea of lowering taxes on other things to make up for the difference. however, i really don't see this happeneing to any great effect due the tendency of oil companys to pay to have their say in how things are done. seeing as there are already engines that run on water or renewable fuel like bio-diesel, it isn't that we have to get car companys to make more fuel efficianet cars, but make cars that run on these new fuels (that don't pollute at all).
This idea of taxing people to not pollute is very much the same concept of paying kids to do their school work. The point is, people should want to save the environment--and this can only happen through education. if we were more aware of what a huge impact each of us have on the environment, then the problem might seem more personal--something that we can actually fix. By taxing people, it is like replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one. But i guess this is okay, because the effects are immediate (educating everone about the environment takes a long time, but really is the only long-term solution in my opinion). I like the way these taxes give each country a sense of control over their own policies--i mean, everyone is more eager to do things when they are not being forced to do them...
This idea of taxing people to not pollute is very much the same concept of paying kids to do their school work. The point is, people should want to save the environment--and this can only happen through education. if we were more aware of what a huge impact each of us have on the environment, then the problem might seem more personal--something that we can actually fix. By taxing people, it is like replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one. But i guess this is okay, because the effects are immediate (educating everone about the environment takes a long time, but really is the only long-term solution in my opinion). I like the way these taxes give each country a sense of control over their own policies--i mean, everyone is more eager to do things when they are not being forced to do them...
i think the idea of putting a tax on pollution is a great idea. the tax would get people to realize how pollution really harms the environment and hopefully encourage them to do something about it. people can start driving fuel efficent cars and limit there driving to wat is neccesary. car pooling, taking the train, or the bus would limit the out come of pollution.
To put a tax on pollution is both a clever and most likely inflammatory action, granted it would effectively aid in environmental conservation but at the same time there is also a good chance that it would anger a large populous group. While I personally agree with the tax it could possibly have equally damaging effects due to protest against it. Another fact is that the rate of inflation may rise due to a larger amount of money being printed due to society’s exponential growth rate.
Personally, I think a tax on carbon use is a good idea. People would carpool, and therefore it would create less car accidents and decrease traffic. Putting a tax on carbon would encourage people to drive less and become more conscience of when and for how long they are driving. I think the tax should vary on not how much your car cost, but how much mile per gallon it consumes. I don't know if this is realistic, but I believe a tax variation according to characteristics of automobiles, such as mpg,could work.
I think a tax on carbon output is good idea. Because of placing this tax on carbon output many things may be able to benefit. For one the it could really help the environment. Another thing is that more people may begin to carpool, and beacuse of this not as many cars will be on the road, and less car accidents would occur. In the article Pay For Grades, they believed that you should be payed for doing something good, but I believe that having a punishment, like a tax, will be much more efficent and will work much better.
Taxing in the name of global health seems to be the only solution to slow pollution. People tend to look out for there own incentives like in Naked Economics buying the big gas-guzzling car might hurt the environment but it keeps everyone in the car safe. Its not irrational to try to protect the people in the car, including yourself, even if you know that it brings you one more step closer to global warming. This is why we need to use this idea. It will lower the amount of carbon production and keep everyone in cars safe. First, the tax will increase price on fuel usage. As we can all predict, big cars will be used less bringing smaller cars on the roads more often. Already using taxes will lead people to find more fuel-efficient cars. As an added feature, smaller cars will have a less chance of crashing into a large car giving the drivers and passengers of smaller cars a better percentage of minimal damage. This way, taxing will help both universal and individual incentives.
Two things the article neglects to mention: 1) These are not NEW ideas. Tradable admission allowances for business and emission taxes have been discussed and implemented before.
2) In refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the US played a large part in ruining the environment.
All in all, carbon taxes sound like a good idea. But the government cannot implement them and expect no reprecussions. Public transportation needs to be more readily available if these taxes are to really work. But carbon taxes allow us to avoid the real issue: we depend far too much on carbon and need to find new sources of energy. Perhaps the money from these taxes can be used to research new and better ways to power our lives.
the carbon output tax sounds like a beneficial idea. it will really wake people up to the harmful effects of pollution. i think this is a big step towards getting our enviorment to be cleaner and safer. carpooling and public transportation will also benefit the citizens becuase there will fewer accidents. all in all, i think this idea can have alot of positive effects.
I think that taxing carbon output could be a very effective solution. As seen through the demand curve, if the price of something rises, many people would be discouraged to buy it. By taxing the carbon output, people would seek other means of transportation and become more fuel efficient. Although they may not realize it, people would begin to help save the environment. Carpools and public transportation would be utilized to a greater extent and there would be fewer cars on the road.
Like all government decisions, there are the positive and the negative sides to consider. However i believe a tax on carbon would be a step closer to benefitting our environment and saving what we have left of it. This tax would encourage people to use more public transportation and carpool. Or persuade more people to purchase hybrid cars.... or, why not actually force car companies to only sell and produce hybrid cars? This way, not only would your money not be wasted all on gas, but you would be helping the environment and benefitting yourself. After all, if our environmnet is healthy, so are we.
to tax on carbon output would surely help the growing pollution problem. as difficult as it is to operate a car with the price of gas alone, it could easily be unquestionable for someone to pay more. new thoughts of transportation would have to be in order.
such a tax does in fact seem more sensible than what taxes are put on today. for instance things like clothing and food are essential to human survival, yet they are still taxed. a tax on something that’s harming the environment would be more logical and act to greatly decrease pollution.
Issuing a tax on carbon emissions is an interesting idea, but i dont think it would ever pass on a global scale. not enough people care about the environment to make that sacrifice. i think this tax will simply remain a theory.
I think putting a tax on carbon output is a good incentive to help with global warming. It would discourage many people from using their cars too often and encourage them to carpool or use public transportation. But this is a global problem and I think it definitely needs to have a global solution. The US or China, even though they are the biggest carbon output-ers, cannot be the only ones to put this tax into action. I also think, to reduce negative feedback, the amount of tax one pays should be based on miles per gallon ones car gets and how much income one makes, along with the price of the car. For instance, if someone makes $1 million a year and drives a Hummer, he or she should have to pay more tax than someone who makes far less than that and drives a Kia.
In my opinion the idea of putting a tax on carbon is a good one. It will definetely have less people using their cars to get everywhere. Also, the fact that people many times use their cars without it being so necessary. It is important that steps are taken to take care of our damaged environment. But it is also important to provide the public with efficient transportation. If the tax is to work appropiately, than there should also be alternate ways for people to get to where they have to be. And if the tax is placed to help the environment, then in my opinion the revenue should also be used to help the environment, with new progams, and not be used as any other tax.
taxing people on their harm on the environment would be a good idea. though i doubt people would be trilled about it. people will find ways to not pay a lot of money. there would be more use of public transportation and who knows people might start walking to places near by instead of driving their car to the end of the street. they will be more aware of pollution and their actions.
issuing a carbon tax will hopefully have a positive effect on the environment. i think it is one of the best options out of the many few there are to help conserve our environment. in addition, a carbon tax will be more effective than cap-and-trade because a carbon tax will not only hopefully deter people from using more fuel, it would also create revenue, which could be used towards creating a more environmentally conscious world.
Due to the fact that global warming is becoming an immediate threat to our planet, we must start some kind of front against this juggernaut. I believe that this tax on carbon emmissions is a good start. Most of our previous attempts to save the environment have been pretty useless; nothing has gotten better. So why not start with this tax? Of course no one likes a new tax, but this one will be meaningful. If successful, then we will have made a positive step in the war on global warming. We have to start our attack soon, or else it might be too late.
taxes do sound like a good way to limit carbon emission, but higher costs haven't stopped people from driving. gas prices have gone up, and so has the amount of driving. the public would never support this tax because they would see it as just more money out of their pockets. politicians would not support a tax like this, not only because they would lose public support, but also contributions from companies in the energy business or that produce a lot of carbon. this tax does not seem very likely, and if it is implemented, it probably would not help much.
I like the idea of this tax more or less, providing an incentive changes behavior. On my own consumption it doesn’t deter me much from driving considering my car gives me about 40 miles per gallon. The article made the point of this tax hurting the poor and middle class the most and this is a fairly good point. However, I believe it is more general than that, mainly this tax will hurt anyone who drives as a part of their work. Poor and middle class fall into that category, anyone who has to commute to and from work everyday (like Mr. Rood) or needs a less fuel efficient vehicle for their job (like a van). Also I don’t think that this tax will force auto-makers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Whatever advances in efficiency have already been made. This will however change the trends of those who are buying the vehicles. People will be more likely to buy alternatives, and if you really really want a hummer you can still buy one and pay a much higher carbon tax. As for the accident and road congestion point, I think it is rather stupid, and might just be an excuse against the tax. If the carbon tax increases, driving as a result will decrease. If more efficient vehicles are created, driving will increase. They might have forgotten that even with that increase, the carbon tax is still there. Together they will balance each other in a fashion. I like Joanna’s point on a side note “replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one.” Unfortunately a lot of people don’t have any morals (self not included), and it is a really sad thing to see morality slipping away. Which reminds me of a quote from a doctor at the Southampton Hospital, whose name I can’t remember. That “Where once we had morals, now we have laws.”
I like the idea of using taxes to encourage people to do less damage on the environment. this would make people do things to stop the emmisiiom of carbons and other deadly things. i think using more public transportation would be a good thing but not many people would want to use it. more people should start to walk to the nearby store instead of driving the taxes would make people do this.
23 comments:
the idea of taxing people for thier carbon output is a creative way to dicourage environmental pollution. if people have to pay a tax to drive it will discourage unecessary driving and therfore cut back on pollution. by the added income to the government through a carbon tax they could cut back on the income tax deducted from wages so the amount of money being brought home by people doesnt really change, but is distributed diffrently in a way that benefits the environment.
i think a tax on carbon output is great...if there are alternative solutions. if you can't afford to have a car to get to work, then public transportation should be made more redily available.
i also like the idea of lowering taxes on other things to make up for the difference. however, i really don't see this happeneing to any great effect due the tendency of oil companys to pay to have their say in how things are done. seeing as there are already engines that run on water or renewable fuel like bio-diesel, it isn't that we have to get car companys to make more fuel efficianet cars, but make cars that run on these new fuels (that don't pollute at all).
This idea of taxing people to not pollute is very much the same concept of paying kids to do their school work. The point is, people should want to save the environment--and this can only happen through education.
if we were more aware of what a huge impact each of us have on the environment, then the problem might seem more personal--something that we can actually fix.
By taxing people, it is like replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one. But i guess this is okay, because the effects are immediate (educating everone about the environment takes a long time, but really is the only long-term solution in my opinion).
I like the way these taxes give each country a sense of control over their own policies--i mean, everyone is more eager to do things when they are not being forced to do them...
This idea of taxing people to not pollute is very much the same concept of paying kids to do their school work. The point is, people should want to save the environment--and this can only happen through education.
if we were more aware of what a huge impact each of us have on the environment, then the problem might seem more personal--something that we can actually fix.
By taxing people, it is like replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one. But i guess this is okay, because the effects are immediate (educating everone about the environment takes a long time, but really is the only long-term solution in my opinion).
I like the way these taxes give each country a sense of control over their own policies--i mean, everyone is more eager to do things when they are not being forced to do them...
i think the idea of putting a tax on pollution is a great idea. the tax would get people to realize how pollution really harms the environment and hopefully encourage them to do something about it. people can start driving fuel efficent cars and limit there driving to wat is neccesary. car pooling, taking the train, or the bus would limit the out come of pollution.
To put a tax on pollution is both a clever and most likely inflammatory action, granted it would effectively aid in environmental conservation but at the same time there is also a good chance that it would anger a large populous group. While I personally agree with the tax it could possibly have equally damaging effects due to protest against it. Another fact is that the rate of inflation may rise due to a larger amount of money being printed due to society’s exponential growth rate.
Personally, I think a tax on carbon use is a good idea. People would carpool, and therefore it would create less car accidents and decrease traffic. Putting a tax on carbon would encourage people to drive less and become more conscience of when and for how long they are driving. I think the tax should vary on not how much your car cost, but how much mile per gallon it consumes. I don't know if this is realistic, but I believe a tax variation according to characteristics of automobiles, such as mpg,could work.
I think a tax on carbon output is good idea. Because of placing this tax on carbon output many things may be able to benefit. For one the it could really help the environment. Another thing is that more people may begin to carpool, and beacuse of this not as many cars will be on the road, and less car accidents would occur. In the article Pay For Grades, they believed that you should be payed for doing something good, but I believe that having a punishment, like a tax, will be much more efficent and will work much better.
Taxing in the name of global health seems to be the only solution to slow pollution. People tend to look out for there own incentives like in Naked Economics buying the big gas-guzzling car might hurt the environment but it keeps everyone in the car safe. Its not irrational to try to protect the people in the car, including yourself, even if you know that it brings you one more step closer to global warming.
This is why we need to use this idea. It will lower the amount of carbon production and keep everyone in cars safe. First, the tax will increase price on fuel usage. As we can all predict, big cars will be used less bringing smaller cars on the roads more often. Already using taxes will lead people to find more fuel-efficient cars. As an added feature, smaller cars will have a less chance of crashing into a large car giving the drivers and passengers of smaller cars a better percentage of minimal damage. This way, taxing will help both universal and individual incentives.
Two things the article neglects to mention:
1) These are not NEW ideas. Tradable admission allowances for business and emission taxes have been discussed and implemented before.
2) In refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the US played a large part in ruining the environment.
All in all, carbon taxes sound like a good idea. But the government cannot implement them and expect no reprecussions. Public transportation needs to be more readily available if these taxes are to really work. But carbon taxes allow us to avoid the real issue: we depend far too much on carbon and need to find new sources of energy. Perhaps the money from these taxes can be used to research new and better ways to power our lives.
the carbon output tax sounds like a beneficial idea. it will really wake people up to the harmful effects of pollution. i think this is a big step towards getting our enviorment to be cleaner and safer. carpooling and public transportation will also benefit the citizens becuase there will fewer accidents. all in all, i think this idea can have alot of positive effects.
I think that taxing carbon output could be a very effective solution. As seen through the demand curve, if the price of something rises, many people would be discouraged to buy it. By taxing the carbon output, people would seek other means of transportation and become more fuel efficient. Although they may not realize it, people would begin to help save the environment. Carpools and public transportation would be utilized to a greater extent and there would be fewer cars on the road.
Like all government decisions, there are the positive and the negative sides to consider. However i believe a tax on carbon would be a step closer to benefitting our environment and saving what we have left of it. This tax would encourage people to use more public transportation and carpool. Or persuade more people to purchase hybrid cars.... or, why not actually force car companies to only sell and produce hybrid cars? This way, not only would your money not be wasted all on gas, but you would be helping the environment and benefitting yourself. After all, if our environmnet is healthy, so are we.
to tax on carbon output would surely help the growing pollution problem. as difficult as it is to operate a car with the price of gas alone, it could easily be unquestionable for someone to pay more. new thoughts of transportation would have to be in order.
such a tax does in fact seem more sensible than what taxes are put on today. for instance things like clothing and food are essential to human survival, yet they are still taxed. a tax on something that’s harming the environment would be more logical and act to greatly decrease pollution.
Issuing a tax on carbon emissions is an interesting idea, but i dont think it would ever pass on a global scale. not enough people care about the environment to make that sacrifice. i think this tax will simply remain a theory.
I think putting a tax on carbon output is a good incentive to help with global warming. It would discourage many people from using their cars too often and encourage them to carpool or use public transportation. But this is a global problem and I think it definitely needs to have a global solution. The US or China, even though they are the biggest carbon output-ers, cannot be the only ones to put this tax into action.
I also think, to reduce negative feedback, the amount of tax one pays should be based on miles per gallon ones car gets and how much income one makes, along with the price of the car. For instance, if someone makes $1 million a year and drives a Hummer, he or she should have to pay more tax than someone who makes far less than that and drives a Kia.
In my opinion the idea of putting a tax on carbon is a good one. It will definetely have less people using their cars to get everywhere. Also, the fact that people many times use their cars without it being so necessary. It is important that steps are taken to take care of our damaged environment. But it is also important to provide the public with efficient transportation. If the tax is to work appropiately, than there should also be alternate ways for people to get to where they have to be. And if the tax is placed to help the environment, then in my opinion the revenue should also be used to help the environment, with new progams, and not be used as any other tax.
taxing people on their harm on the environment would be a good idea. though i doubt people would be trilled about it. people will find ways to not pay a lot of money. there would be more use of public transportation and who knows people might start walking to places near by instead of driving their car to the end of the street. they will be more aware of pollution and their actions.
issuing a carbon tax will hopefully have a positive effect on the environment. i think it is one of the best options out of the many few there are to help conserve our environment. in addition, a carbon tax will be more effective than cap-and-trade because a carbon tax will not only hopefully deter people from using more fuel, it would also create revenue, which could be used towards creating a more environmentally conscious world.
Due to the fact that global warming is becoming an immediate threat to our planet, we must start some kind of front against this juggernaut. I believe that this tax on carbon emmissions is a good start. Most of our previous attempts to save the environment have been pretty useless; nothing has gotten better. So why not start with this tax? Of course no one likes a new tax, but this one will be meaningful. If successful, then we will have made a positive step in the war on global warming. We have to start our attack soon, or else it might be too late.
taxes do sound like a good way to limit carbon emission, but higher costs haven't stopped people from driving. gas prices have gone up, and so has the amount of driving. the public would never support this tax because they would see it as just more money out of their pockets. politicians would not support a tax like this, not only because they would lose public support, but also contributions from companies in the energy business or that produce a lot of carbon. this tax does not seem very likely, and if it is implemented, it probably would not help much.
I like the idea of this tax more or less, providing an incentive changes behavior. On my own consumption it doesn’t deter me much from driving considering my car gives me about 40 miles per gallon. The article made the point of this tax hurting the poor and middle class the most and this is a fairly good point. However, I believe it is more general than that, mainly this tax will hurt anyone who drives as a part of their work. Poor and middle class fall into that category, anyone who has to commute to and from work everyday (like Mr. Rood) or needs a less fuel efficient vehicle for their job (like a van). Also I don’t think that this tax will force auto-makers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Whatever advances in efficiency have already been made. This will however change the trends of those who are buying the vehicles. People will be more likely to buy alternatives, and if you really really want a hummer you can still buy one and pay a much higher carbon tax. As for the accident and road congestion point, I think it is rather stupid, and might just be an excuse against the tax. If the carbon tax increases, driving as a result will decrease. If more efficient vehicles are created, driving will increase. They might have forgotten that even with that increase, the carbon tax is still there. Together they will balance each other in a fashion.
I like Joanna’s point on a side note “replacing a moral incentive with a monetary one.” Unfortunately a lot of people don’t have any morals (self not included), and it is a really sad thing to see morality slipping away. Which reminds me of a quote from a doctor at the Southampton Hospital, whose name I can’t remember. That “Where once we had morals, now we have laws.”
I like the idea of using taxes to encourage people to do less damage on the environment. this would make people do things to stop the emmisiiom of carbons and other deadly things. i think using more public transportation would be a good thing but not many people would want to use it. more people should start to walk to the nearby store instead of driving the taxes would make people do this.
Post a Comment