Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S. implement a carbon tax instead of a cap and trade program?

  • Add a carbon tax to the top GHG emitters.

    Do not add a carbon tax to everyone just the top 500 emitters like Australia has done. Although the price will still affect consumers of the companies it will create more competition between businesses and they will try to still keep prices down. In the end of this all the companies will still be the ones paying more. The middle class can't expect not to pay to maintain climate change. We all know the top 1% do not care. Lets change this world and stop expecting everybody else to.

  • Yes, the U.S. should implement a carbon tax in order to curb our greenhouse gas emissions.

    The U.S. should implement a carbon tax in order to curb the toxic greenhouse gas emissions that are bad, not only for the environment and the ozone layer, but also for people, themselves. Toxic emissions are becoming associated with many disorders, especially during puberty, with the consequences difficult to detect for many years. Money is the only language that business speaks, so a carbon tax makes the most sense.

    Posted by: SuccinctDerek96
  • The U.S. should implement a carbon tax, instead of a cap and trade, because it will be more beneficial to the environment.

    The implementation of a carbon tax will help reduce emissions and address problems resulting from global warming. This will benefit the environment and could ultimately reduce the recent surge in dangerous weather. This would also reduce the need for aid money to combat storm damage. A cap and trade will only result in companies finding loopholes, where the carbon emission tax will be easier to enforce.

    Posted by: GlossyCyrus79
  • I believe there should also be a limit on the amount of carbon emissions.

    A carbon tax would be easy to implement compared to a cap and trade program. We could begin taxing much sooner than we could implement a cap and trade. However a carbon tax does not limit emissions. It merely creates a tax based on the amount of carbon emissions. Profitable companies have no incentive for less carbon emissions if they can afford the tax. Why reduce emissions if the profits are affected?

    Posted by: AloofLane32
  • drowned polar bears

    Greenland and Antarctica falling apart, having to change the drawings completely of a world map because of sea level rising and drowning cities. our children and grandchildren having to deal with this problem instead of us ( what we can't do it ) yes we can!

  • I believe that there should be a carbon tax instead of a cap and trade program, because it would ultimately help the environment more.

    There are many problems that come from acts against the environment, such as burning fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels will lead to many problems down the line when it comes to needing clean air. It can also lead to many animals losing their lives, besides just us. Also, the effects could ruin our ability to eat certain things that are infected from the pollution. A tax would be helpful in preventing some of these problems and paying for the repairs of damage already done.

    Posted by: IettBubbIe
  • I believe that a carbon tax will generate a steady additional stream of revenue for the country.

    Administering a tax on carbon will reduce emissions and help address the issue of global warming.

    Posted by: Csabaxpart
  • Yes, a tax would probably cause change to happen faster in carbon release reduction than cap and trade would.

    A tax on carbon dioxide emissions would probably work much faster to drive companies to reduce their carbon emissions. The cap and trade program will get so involved in trying to make money on selling spare carbon credits that a tax would be easier to monitor and force companies to change faster. Cap and trade will just have them all seeking ways to benefit not change.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Yes, it is a more direct way and provide better incentives to cut emissions

    The carbon tax would be more efficient since it would be directly applied to the amount of emissions. It will also bring all citizens in and provide an incentive to better insulate homes, buy more efficient appliances and more fuel efficient vehicles. It could also increase the local economy since goods and foods would be less taxed than goods with higher transport costs. If applied correctly, citizens and industries would try everything they can to avoid paying the tax and thus lower emissions. And the big banks wouldn't profit so much from all the trades in emission certificates.

    Posted by: SteChiquita
  • Companies should not be allowed to trade carbon shares.

    Allowing companies to buy and trade their carbon shares, is undermining the system in place. Allowing big companies to buy up shares is not deterring them from polluting, nor is it making them clean up their act to make their practices better. By outlaying this, it will help us clean up the environment for years to come.

    Posted by: ChuckGenius
  • A carbon tax would be detrimental to hi-tech industries.

    Carbon is a contributor to global warming. It is also the primary element used by hi-tech industries to expand technology, particularly the processing capabilities of computers. Unless a carbon tax was specific to environmental issues, imposing a carbon tax would be detrimental to hi-tech industries that rely on it as a major source for their products.

  • It hasn't worked in Australia.

    We have one in Australia, it still gets hot here. All it has done is make energy more expensive and then the government subsidizes heavy polluters so that company balance sheets maintain profitability. Seriously what is the point of that? It is disheartening to hear that other countries may be subjected to a similar system.

  • In the current economic climate, adding more taxes as a carbon tax would not help this country, as they would only further cripple it.

    It has already been stated that, with the carbon tax, there would be more taxes. We are already taxed beyond reason, and we do not need one more thing to have to pay. Though there is slight hope for economic recovery, we are still on the edge of recession. Steps need to be taken and implemented to fix that, before we start worrying about adding a new tax.

    Posted by: ProudMan45
  • The U.S. should not use a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, because both would add to our financial problems.

    The U.S. is wasting money and resources, and costing citizens and businesses money, by using a cap and trade program that truly does nothing to improve the environment or quality of life. Instituting a carbon tax would add to these problems, not solve them. It's time to stop legislating everything. This should not be a nanny state.

    Posted by: TrashyBrain42
  • The U.S. should not implement a carbon tax, due to the current state of the economy.

    There are two things for certain in this world. One is death, and the other is taxes. And we do not like either, but we know both are going to happen. However, nobody likes to pay taxes. After all, we all know how hard it was to earn. Making a carbon tax would just upset everyone, especially in this economy.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • We need both a carbon tax and a cap and trade program to respond to global warming.

    I believe that we need to use an array of tools to respond to the threat of global warming. Tools like cap and trade programs, which use market forces to adjust the behavior of businesses, are good for encouraging an economically efficient response over the long term. In the near term, carbon taxes send a price signal to energy users and also raise funds to help ameliorate the impact on business and labor in carbon-intensive industries and to support research and development on technologies that will reduce the overall cost of stabilizing CO2 levels.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • A carbon tax would be virtually unenforceable with current assets and technology.

    As much as we would like to believe our government is genuinely concerned with climate change that truth is they will use any semi-feasible reason to enact a new tax. This is just another tactic of the party now in power, the same party that has in just two years accumulated a national deficit exceeding that of the last four presidents combined. A carbon tax is smoke and mirrors at its finest. How would this tax be determined? If the government has the funds and time to develop this kind of technology it would be better spent in other ways that reduce our carbon footprint. Things like our dependency on foreign oil, the real "clean coal", and expanded nuclear power facilities. At this point any new tax proposals should be based on hard and fast fact and not the financial equivalent of nailing jello to a tree.

    Posted by: EweIICist
  • A carbon tax is nothing more than a tool to give money to new "green" industries; they do nothing to actually help our country.

    The Carbon Tax is a scam and a fraud, instead of reducing emissions, you are taxed for the amount of emissions you produce over a government agency established level. The money they gather through this means is not actually helping reduce ozone emissions or helping the earth; it simply gives your money to other people who can do what they want with it.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • gas tax, sales tax, income tax - another tax will kill us

    We pay gas taxes on gasoline. Most states charge sales tax on gasoline, many on electricity, often on fuel oil and propane. Fuel companies and utilities pay income tax on the revenue they make, which means they must charge more for their product. We already pay taxes on fuel many different ways. A carbon tax is just one more tax that a government may levy, though it may leave consumers cold and in the dark.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • A carbon tax is not economical.

    A carbon tax, much like the sales tax, hurts those least able to pay for it; in this case small to mid size businesses. Since smaller businesses are the driving force in the American economy, it would surely hit businesses who barely had the resources to come out of this last recession in many cases. As such few businesses will hire workers if they have to pay more in taxes. As a result the GDP will not increase.

    Posted by: 5c0Ieak

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.