With Chinas population at approximately 6.7 billion, and representing  20% of the world's population, one in every five people on the planet being a resident of China and all....wouldn't a truly neutral and transparent global environmental-population ministry supervising a mandatory per-capita population-enviro tax be better calculated and imposed in accordance with population?

Ie...When solving our worlds environmental and sustainability problems why not charge every individual on the planet a small  annual population-enviro 'GREEN' toll?

Picture this.... say if every person on earth paid just one Euro, Yen or $US etc a year for their own environmental footprint on our planet...in accordance with their own nations currency..... imagine what a progressive and globally neutral world ministry comprising a seat for every nations leader could together allocate to the scientific research and development of new- more environmentally friendly energy solutions right round the world?

Fair and square, the way it should be...why should some pay more, because they are wealthy, or less because they are poor?

A fair toll, for a fair environmentally astute world order.

Like a climate kitty, a type of world environmental-population trust...  whereby all people from every nation on earth could have web-access to this world panels public database and annual report it's costings......this and even scientists and institutes themselves could apply for individual grants, funding for scientific research all over the world at the click of a mouse?

What a wonderful world-order it would be.

8-) If they could devise a more transparent, accountable, honest and fair environmental-population global ministry like this and impose a toll..  I would happily pay $1000 a year for my own environmental footprint, so long as I could see exactly how this was being allocated, spent, and put towards advancing our entire civilization fairly. Of course not all people could afford $1000...but even one dollar per individual would make a earth-friendly difference I think.


Why not advance all the worlds nations fairly... tell me why this kind of system would not work?

Ok, it's a pipe-dream theory, but is it unattainable?



8-)

There could be an award system, for those nations developing environmentally sound technology and their clever scientists, this and they could receive funding grants in accordance with performance on a global level.


Global prize awards.

:)..

The world population is currently estimated to be 6874300000 by the United States Census Bureau 2010.

What could we do with $6874300000, (give and take exchange rates)... or even half this amount?

Imagine this going towards saving our planet.

Would there be a need then for taxing individual nations , and their pollution billowing industries a carbon tax...or ETS?

8-) With newer technology's rapidly developing and progressing...we wouldn't need to tax industry, they would be compelled to move with the times...keep up with newer, cleaner environmentally friendly technology being developed as a result of funding being allocated responsibly and transparently world wide.

No corporate kick-backs, or donations, just one dollar, per person on earth!

No more, no less.

mellie wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 1:43am:

No corporate kick-backs, or donations, just one dollar, per person on earth! No more, no less.

mellie I am a lateral thinker,,so like I always ask.... what is it that you would have them spend the money on.??..

how do they plan on saving the planet. as it is I dont believe we have the POWER to change anything on this planet..oh I know the greens and their like think we do.. but somehow they never quite explain how we change it its all assumed... watching the floods once again in Qld.. the thought accured to me that this must have been happening long before whitey ever came to this continent.. no records kept and in those days the natives just picked up their belongings and moved away. but I am almost positive none of this is new and human caused..

so how will money save us what will it achieve??? will it just put some minds at rest and calm them into thinking we the world are doing something...LOL.. I wish like world peace lets keep talking about it it may happen.

codswal wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 5:54am:

mellie wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 1:43am: No corporate kick-backs, or donations, just one dollar, per person on earth! No more, no less. mellie I am a lateral thinker,,so like I always ask.... what is it that you would have them spend the money on.??.. how do they plan on saving the planet. as it is I dont believe we have the POWER to change anything on this planet..oh I know the greens and their like think we do.. but somehow they never quite explain how we change it its all assumed... watching the floods once again in Qld.. the thought accured to me that this must have been happening long before whitey ever came to this continent.. no records kept and in those days the natives just picked up their belongings and moved away. but I am almost positive none of this is new and human caused.. so how will money save us what will it achieve??? will it just put some minds at rest and calm them into thinking we the world are doing something...LOL.. I wish like world peace lets keep talking about it it may happen.

I was being a little facetious when I said "save the planet"...I should have used italics, to accentuate this trite overused expression because like you, I don't believe in a AGW theory.

Though I do believe we need to start focusing on the 'known-to-be'  harmful toxic environmental pollutants, which truly are a serous threat to both our environment, ecosystem and mankind itself.

Toxic substances such as dioxin and heavy metals, which due to increasing industry, we are observing higher levels of these toxic substances in our natural environment, (thus ecosystem and food supply) than ever before. Some fish species containing levels three times higher than the recommended safe level of consumption, this and are still being sold at our fish mongers, when really, some species should contain health authority warnings.

The spectrum of health related afflictions is quite staggering, some of which biologically harmful,  neurotoxic , tetragenic, carcinogenic, mutinogenic and have been linked to autism, skin disease, birth defects, even chromosomal abnormalities. Some of these toxins are used as preservatives in pharmaceuticals, and found in fresh and imported produce, personal hygiene products,cosmetics . We have only just began to scratch the surface, though since a number of parents began taking legal action against their governments in the US and a number of other developed countries also, (mercury having been linked to autism, this and until 2002, was used as a preservative in regular childhood vaccines here in Australia and all over the world).. we have gone quiet on the subject,....preferring to focus on Climate Change.

When really, it's our environment that's quite toxic and needs to be dealt with, monitored more closely, this and regulated, for as our population increases, so does our agriculture and industry,  threatening both our health and sustainability for generations to come.
I think it's something our government would rather we didn't think too much about, at the risk of this harming our precious exports and industries....



So I would like to see the establishment of a global environmental and population authority, this and see if we can start getting serious about the environmental concerns we face, this and can control.


One dollar, per person, world wide. No more, no less, and every cent accounted for.


8-)i

I actually agree with you on this one Mel. I think they've used the wrong approach to sell "global warming" - they should have used the word "polution" in their catch cry. There is no doubt that the planet is undergoing some serious warming/cooling changes - again, but it's too easy for the skeptics to pick holes in the argument that man is creating this.

A pollution tax would get a better response than a carbon tax.

mellie wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

codswal wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 5:54am: mellie wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 1:43am: No corporate kick-backs, or donations, just one dollar, per person on earth! No more, no less. mellie I am a lateral thinker,,so like I always ask.... what is it that you would have them spend the money on.??.. how do they plan on saving the planet. as it is I dont believe we have the POWER to change anything on this planet..oh I know the greens and their like think we do.. but somehow they never quite explain how we change it its all assumed... watching the floods once again in Qld.. the thought accured to me that this must have been happening long before whitey ever came to this continent.. no records kept and in those days the natives just picked up their belongings and moved away. but I am almost positive none of this is new and human caused.. so how will money save us what will it achieve??? will it just put some minds at rest and calm them into thinking we the world are doing something...LOL.. I wish like world peace lets keep talking about it it may happen. I was being a little facetious when I said "save the planet"...I should have used italics, to accentuate this trite overused expression because like you, I don't believe in a AGW theory. Though I do believe we need to start focusing on the 'known-to-be'  harmful toxic environmental pollutants, which truly are a serous threat to both our environment, ecosystem and mankind itself. Toxic substances such as dioxin and heavy metals, which due to increasing industry, we are observing higher levels of these toxic substances in our natural environment, (thus ecosystem and food supply) than ever before. Some fish species containing levels three times higher than the recommended safe level of consumption, this and are still being sold at our fish mongers, when really, some species should contain health authority warnings. The spectrum of health related afflictions is quite staggering, some of which biologically harmful,  neurotoxic , tetragenic, carcinogenic, mutinogenic and have been linked to autism, skin disease, birth defects, even chromosomal abnormalities. Some of these toxins are used as preservatives in pharmaceuticals, and found in fresh and imported produce, personal hygiene products,cosmetics . We have only just began to scratch the surface, though since a number of parents began taking legal action against their governments in the US and a number of other developed countries also, (mercury having been linked to autism, this and until 2002, was used as a preservative in regular childhood vaccines here in Australia and all over the world).. we have gone quiet on the subject,....preferring to focus on Climate Change. When really, it's our environment that's quite toxic and needs to be dealt with, monitored more closely, this and regulated, for as our population increases, so does our agriculture and industry,  threatening both our health and sustainability for generations to come. I think it's something our government would rather we didn't think too much about, at the risk of this harming our precious exports and industries.... So I would like to see the establishment of a global environmental and population authority, this and see if we can start getting serious about the environmental concerns we face, this and can control. One dollar, per person, world wide. No more, no less, and every cent accounted for. 8-)

it wouldnt work mel for the simple reason the poorer countries would have the responsibility of the funds and we know where they would end up.. sorry have no faith in any of these so called world saving conglomerates.. look at the UN I have no faith whatsoever.. but keep dreaming at least it shows you/we care and thats half the problem today the other half is getting it right..

did you watch 4 corners last night.. it was hair raising..to lose the peace is one thing but to get it so wrong is something else again. it goes to show its no good expecting fighting forces to turn into peace keeping forces it doesnt work like that....as someone said last night if you tell the Marines to attack just what do you expect them to do???

mantra wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 7:37am:

I actually agree with you on this one Mel. I think they've used the wrong approach to sell "global warming" - they should have used the word "polution" in their catch cry. There is no doubt that the planet is undergoing some serious warming/cooling changes - again, but it's too easy for the skeptics to pick holes in the argument that man is creating this. A pollution tax would get a better response than a carbon tax.

thats not bad mantra however why are we always called sceptics.. just because the so called evidence had huge holes in it.

if someone can prove to me that by turning off all the factories the climate would all balance out you know.. no more floods or droughts.the ice would stop melting..I would like to see that.. I just dont think its us thats all..mother nature shes the one I believe in and if and when we can change the direction of the wind and turn back the tide.. well you may win me over..

I think this is a bigger money maker just quietly..look at the pollies its created just in this country alone.

Guys, lets not turn this thread into a climate change debate... I genuinely want it to be an inspirational thread to delve into feasible alternatives to our current mode-of-action, which clearly, has not appealed to all.

One thing we cant disagree on is that our environment is becoming increasingly toxic, due to man-caused pollutants/activity/use, this is proven 100% scientific fact...noone can deny this, hence the rising mercury and dioxin levels in aquatic life and our ecosystem. so I think pushing an environmental/pollution tax of some sort might hold-up , more so than a controversial carbon-only-tax.. we could very well go-on disputing for the next 30 years, like we have for the last 15.

Meanwhile, nothings being done..we have hit a brick wall.

....We need to work with what we already have, of which is enough scientific evidence to prove that we humans are indeed having an environmentally destructive effect on our environment, this and in order to achieve sustainability, we need to invest in new technologies and practices to clean up our act.

Lets build on what we have.

This opposed to flogging a dead sea-horse.

Because the AGW thingy just isn't cutting the grade...this or convincing anyone that they need to work towards cleaning up the planet.


The revenue has to be allocated ethically, this is a toll by the people for their environment, so should be used for just that.

No concessions, no donations, or favours, $1 per person, globally, this and managed by a global environmental authority, think of it as Noahs ark...perhaps two of every political animal?  

Eg, two representatives from each country, from both sides of politics.

Ie, Gillard and Abbott would be on the panel. ...or someone from their partys cabinet representing our country. A sustainable populations minister perhaps?

Call them what you like, but two representatives from both sides of politics representing each and every country overseeing the management of funding allocation, distribution.

I think this could work.

And unlike a carbon-tax, wont spell the birth of a new bureaucracy, one that would be very costly to set-up to begin with...this and is already controversial, too controversial.

Ok, say if AGW was real, it's not the point.. the problem is not enough people believe in it.. see it as extortion, some sort of evil tax,  what we need here is something workable, something in which we can all agree is required, feasible, irrespective of what side of politics you come from... and our polluting our environment, and increasing population concerns are both indisputable undeniable concerns.

Neither Gillard or Abbott can deny the need for this toll.

Why I call it a toll, is because it comes with the concept that the proceeds will be put towards maintaining the very thing we all depend on so heavily, something we all use, this and ALL need to maintain,  this being our planet, our habitat... whereas a tax implies a contribution for the support of a government.

This is a toll for the environment, and only for the environment.

Rich or poor, everyone pays the same toll each year.

Bit like a bridge, irrespective of how rich or poor you are, or what country you come from, you pay the toll to use the bridge.

This bridge being our environment, our habitat, something we all use.i

Should China pay a 5th of the worlds enviro toll?

It is a difficult question and India etc could be added to the question as well.

You could also ask if the western world should pay for the damage it caused through the last century while China, India and the third world were relativly clean.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 9:09am:

Should China pay a 5th of the worlds enviro toll? It is a difficult question and India etc could be added to the question as well. You could also ask if the western world should pay for the damage it caused through the last century while China, India and the third world were relativly clean.

Bigotry and blame aside, this is about each individual paying their enviro- toll to cross the bridge,...past disputes , wars, and  who caused what and so forth are irrelevant, that's for governments to dispute between themselves and other countries leaders....

This Environment toll should be a neutral entity unto itself.

Australia tops global per capita carbon emissions
Separate study puts nation at bottom of rankings for climate change preparedness

14 Sep 2009


Australia has surpassed the US as the world’s biggest per capita producer of carbon emissions, according to a report by a British risk consultancy.

Analyst Maplecroft estimates that Australian CO2 output per head of population now stands at 20.5 tons annually, putting it ahead of the 19.7 tons emitted by the average American.

By comparison, China – which emits more carbon overall than any nation – has a per capita average of about 4.5 tons. In India, where greenhouse gases are expected to double by 2031, emissions are just 1.1 tons per person.

Canada, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia followed Australia and the US in Maplecroft's top five CO2 Energy Emissions Index rankings of 185 countries, which was released last week.

The findings are likely to help bolster the stance of China and India – which have been under pressure to set emissions targets – at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen in December. Both countries have consistently argued that they should not be required to set binding targets in the short to medium term as their per capita emissions are so much lower than those of industrialised nations.

Australia, meanwhile, could come under greater scrutiny at the forthcoming talks, particularly given the parliament's inability last month to enact a carbon trading bill, which was rejected by the Sentate. It later passed into law a less contentious 20 per cent renewables target.

In related news, Australia was also ranked last among industrialised nations in its readiness to combat climate change, according to a separate study issued today.

An index compiled by London-based consultancy Vivid Economics ranked the nation fifteenth among G20 nations for its capacity to compete and prosper in a low-carbon world.

France, Japan and the UK took the respective top three spots in the 19-country index, with the US coming tenth.

Australia even fared badly compared to developing nations, such as China (sixth) and Mexico (eleventh), and was only ranked above South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, which rounded out the list.

The report, sponsored by environmental lobby groups The Climate Institute and Third Generation Environmentalism, attributed China's relatively lofty ranking to "high rates of reforestation and low transport sector energy consumption", although the study notes that it has had "rapid recent emissions growth and carbon-intensive electricity supply".

Meanwhile, Australia's high car ownership rates and heavy exports of fossil fuels, such as coal, had contributed to the country's low ranking, said the consultancy.

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2249385/australia-tops-global-per

So Mellie,

A person is caught dumping one tyre on a pile of tyres that covers 100 hectares, estimated to be 5 million tyres. 12 parties are found to have created the pile, and are prosecuted.

Is our person responsible for one five millionth of the problem, or a twelfth?

Please delete wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 9:34am:

So Mellie, A person is caught dumping one tyre on a pile of tyres that covers 100 hectares, estimated to be 5 million tyres. 12 parties are found to have created the pile, and are prosecuted. Is our person responsible for one five millionth of the problem, or a twelfth?

Answering that would demand thought. In this forum, few participants think. Most just believe.

You just aren't grasping the concept are you tight-ass,...

We could sit here and argue for another millennia, as to who is ultimately liable for what and why.... fact is, blame is subjective.

Or, we could bury the hatchet and agree it's time to contemplate something doable.

An environmental- population toll is a workable and fair alternative, ... blame-game aside. It's time for environmental-sustainability-population action,  there's not an individual in this world who could argue they don't in any way take their toll on their habitat, in some small way, even if it's just eroding the soil to and from their letterbox for 75 years once a day like you Dave ;)

Think of it as a butterfly effect, you may have wiped out a rare species of beetle on your way to your letterbox unbeknown to you at the time, which resulted in a destructive chain of cataclysmic events which has given rise  to a destructive plague of other deadly insects, the one you wiped out with your slipper-shoe used to feed on...which kept the now plague-bug in check, ...1000 years after you trod on it.

Does it really matter who killed the very last insect Dave, the point is it's lead to disaster, a problem we now all share, and need to get sorted, so should I dig up your carcass, 1000 years later, this or hunt down your living descendants to pay the bug-catcher because you happened to be that guy who trod on the last bug which fed on a pre-evolved come-deadly flesh-eating pest?

This toll is about individuals taking personal responsibility for their own toll on our planet here and now...while they as a single unit, not a nation, or a government make way for a more environmentally sound tomorrow for generations to come.

:)...  Failing this... we should impose a space exploration levy, because the rate we're going, we  are going to need a liveable alternative if we continue populating and polluting the rate we are.

Dave, we are that plague.

i

mellie wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

You just aren't grasping the concept are you tight-ass,... We could sit here and argue for another millennia, as to who is ultimately liable for what and why.... fact is, blame is subjective. Or, we could bury the hatchet and agree it's time to contemplate something doable. An environmental- population toll is a workable and fair alternative, ... blame-game aside. It's time for environmental-sustainability-population action,  there's not an individual in this world who could argue they don't in any way take their toll on their habitat, in some small way, even if it's just eroding the soil to and from their letterbox for 75 years once a day like you Dave ;) Think of it as a butterfly effect, you may have wiped out a rare species of beetle on your way to your letterbox unbeknown to you at the time, which resulted in a destructive chain of cataclysmic events which has given rise  to a destructive plague of other deadly insects, the one you wiped out with your slipper-shoe used to feed on...which kept the now plague-bug in check, ...1000 years after you trod on it. Does it really matter who killed the very last insect Dave, the point is it's lead to disaster, a problem we now all share, and need to get sorted, so should I dig up your carcass, 1000 years later, this or hunt down your living descendants to pay the bug-catcher because you happened to be that guy who trod on the last bug which fed on a pre-evolved come-deadly flesh-eating pest? This toll is about individuals taking personal responsibility for their own toll on our planet here and now...while they as a single unit, not a nation, or a government make way for a more environmentally sound tomorrow for generations to come. :)...  Failing this... we should impose a space exploration levy, because the rate we're going, we  are going to need a liveable alternative if we continue populating and polluting the rate we are. Dave, we are that plague.

mellie you expecteth too much from this forumwhen they cant give an answer they hit you with a question its the lefty way.

my logicical answer to that question is.. if that was me being charged with dumping.. I would ask who is getting paid to allow 5 million tyres to be dumped in the first place..and if it was only one tyre I was caught with dont blame me for all the others..

thats the trouble with hypertheticals..I can always come up with another question.

I agree it was a lousy hypothetical, but so is this whole argument.

China didn't create the problem. We western nations pumped all our pollution into the air, enjoyed all the benefits of that uncontrolled waste, and now want China to pay the penalty that we haven't yet paid.

# wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

Please delete wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 9:34am: So Mellie, A person is caught dumping one tyre on a pile of tyres that covers 100 hectares, estimated to be 5 million tyres. 12 parties are found to have created the pile, and are prosecuted. Is our person responsible for one five millionth of the problem, or a twelfth? Answering that would demand thought. In this forum, few participants think. Most just believe.

the better question is who removes the tyres. and of course it isnt ONE type being dumped on top of 5million. it is actually 5 million MORE being dumped on top. A little accuracy really plays havoc with silly analogies.

Please delete wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 11:48am:

I agree it was a lousy hypothetical, but so is this whole argument. China didn't create the problem. We western nations pumped all our pollution into the air, enjoyed all the benefits of that uncontrolled waste, and now want China to pay the penalty that we haven't yet paid.

that all depends on whether it is important to you to be 'fair' (as you perceive it) or to solve the problem. you actually cant do both.

Being "unfair" to China might have some unfortunate consequences.

Realistically, there has to be a settling out period, where China and India catch up and their emissions plateau, while we Westerners do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to eliminate our own emissions. Use our wealth and technological advantages for everyones benefit.

And China, being the worlds factory, will produce less emissions overall than they would have if they had started when we started, with all the mistakes and excesses that that would entail.

They will produce less emissions overall because they will undoubtedly use our technology as it is developed.

Then presumably THEY will become the technological innovators, and we will follow.

Please delete wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 11:48am:

I agree it was a lousy hypothetical, but so is this whole argument. China didn't create the problem. We western nations pumped all our pollution into the air, enjoyed all the benefits of that uncontrolled waste, and now want China to pay the penalty that we haven't yet paid.

Yes, but China has and IS contributing to the problem, so China should also bear some of the penalty.....