A comparison of carbon taxes vs trading schemes. Taxes are clearly the better option:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1191728697

http://www.carbontax.org/

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Carbon_Emissions%2C_Cap-and-trade_versus_Carbon_Tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:The_consensus_among_economists_is_that_a_carbon_tax_is_the_better_approach

The consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the better approach

A 2/07 Wall Street Journal Survey found that 54 percent of economists favor a carbon tax over all other approaches.

In A July 2006 survey, research firm GlobeScan put the question: 'What is the best tool to reduce emissions?' to its Climate Forum, consisting of sustainability experts and climate change solution providers. The top answer? A carbon tax.

See just how little has been achieved, after an entire decade, by going down the carbon trading path:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22795654-30417,00.html

GREENHOUSE gas emissions from the world's industrialised countries are again on the rise and closing in on record levels, despite most having signed the Kyoto Protocol.

UN figures released last night - just weeks ahead of a key meeting to start brokering a new global deal to cut emissions - show greenhouse gases from Kyoto's 41 industrialised and transition countries approaching "an all-time high".

Emissions fell between 1990 and 2000 but they rose 2.6 per cent between 2000 and 2005, for when the latest figures are available.

The figures show Australia's greenhouse emissions in 2005 were about 25.6 per cent above 1990 levels, although the figure falls to a rise of 4.5 per cent when the effect of bans on land-clearing is included.

Fast-growth countries such as Turkey, Spain and Portugal have ratified Kyoto but still reported increases of about 50 per cent or more since 1990, while emissions from fellow signatory New Zealand have increased by 23 per cent, Canada by 54 per cent and Austria by 14 per cent. Emissions from the US, which, like Australia, has not ratified the protocol, are up 16.3 per cent since 1990.

No. The Kyoto bloc overall is doing better than the US or Australia and far better than China, but I doubt many who see global warming as a threat would be happy with the progress they have made.

---

From Conservatives for Climate and Environment:

On another subject - Carbon Tax, we are very pleased that over the last fortnight the following have come out in favour of a carbon tax:
>  Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin
>  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
>  French President Nicolas Sarkozy

A good sign !

Best Regards

Richard McNeall
President / Secretary
Conservatives for Climate and Environment Inc.
www.cfce.org.au
secretary@cfce.org.au
0421 059 377

Rainwater is more expensive than town water.

This thread was split off from another discussion:

Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2007 at 10:12pm:

Bull, rainwater is free. The storage of it is not, but that is different, I an arguing the case for a full government subsidy on tanks. If this were the case, to the consumer it would be free and so his requirements of tap water is lessened, and government can safely increase the cost of tap water without damage to the hip pocket. I thought you agreed with the whole: 'show business the right price signals and the rest will follow' philosophy.

Having lived off of rainwater with the option of purchasing town water when the tank runs dry... I can tell you town water is more expensive. Remember to cost it out over the life of the tank, which should be extremely long if you look after it.

Quote:

Read carefully... I never once said rainwater tanks could supply industry, they can provide relief for households that will allow room for big price hikes in water - the only economic way to make business do the right thing and conserve/recycle.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2007 at 8:45am:

You see business is the major user (and waster) of water in this country (besides agriculture but that is a different source) so there needs to be more of a measure to reflect who is using what, after all business will transfer the extra costs of any tax onto the consumer. I know you don't believe this happens but it does, it is an economic reality. Now, I take it you have never lived off of a rainwater tank to make such bold statements as this? Let me tell you, when you have to be aware of how much water you have left then you change your habits real quick, regardless of any consideration to what the tank cost. There is something psychological about knowing how little water you have left that is hard to explain without actually being forced into the situation. If you raise the cost of water, people still get the correct price signals, what providing tanks will achieve is an alternative for the consumer so they can choose to manage water well if they want to avoid the large price of mains water. Business will have no choice, and so they will have to find ways around the extra costs like recycling, or even massive water storage, whatever works: they can figure it out. Some of the extra cost of water will be moved onto the consumer through price of goods, but if you place an excise onto water then there is a limit to how much of this tax can be transfered to the consumer since water is a rather demand inelastic commodity (once waste is reduced of course).

So what you do is fund the tank subsidy from an excise on water, by putting business in the position to carry this burden you are able to increase the price of this scarce commodity, reduce the impact of price hikes on the average consumer, and make business wear the cost which will drive innovation to conserve. Consumers will naturally conserve too since they will feel the price hike, but by giving them a personal management solution you aren't unnecessarily hurting those on the bottom of the trash heap, and you reward people for conserving water in the household.

The problem with simply hiking price is that those households already suffering will just fall further below the poverty line and end up relying more heavily on welfare. It makes more sense to me to give them some water infrastructure rather than weekly cash handouts. But I gather you haven't experienced what it's like on the absolute bottom really have you freediver? At least it seems many of your ideas tend to ignore those at the low end o the income scale.