Ecological taxes are a good way to make environment-damaging businesses contribute to their costs?
On average, everyone agrees with nonconsensus between 315 voters.
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Ecological taxes are a good way to make environment-damaging businesses contribute to their costs
Reasons To Disagree
It is difficult to see in theese days of international trade, how one can have such a tax without damaging the country's international competitiveness.
14 February 2006
Taxing of industry in an attempt to force change is the wrong way to tackle a problem and shows a distinct lack of imagination, understanding or interest by those imposing the tax.
24 April 2006
Who thinks of these things? If anyone thinks additional taxes a powerfull force for change they are living in a demented dreamland. Who could possibly conceive of a situation where a company receiving an additional tax burden would not simply try to pass that cost on to the end user? How does this make businesses "contribute to the costs" of damaging the environment? Also, it should surely only be applied to businesses that actually damage the environment! As there are not currently any systems in place to measure and determine this in any way - let alone in terms of level of damage which would be appropriate to determine the amount to tax - then this amounts to another unfair punishment of the actual producers in the country. Try lateral thinking - give companies that change their systems to protect the environment tax breaks for every level of acheivement they reach - with the top braket being zero damage and recycling combined. Problem here is - again - how do you distribute this? It cannot be granted to all companies because not all companies do anything to damage the environment. The question, examined in this way, becomes so broad as to be impossible to find a solution to...
25 May 2006
The companies will just pass the tax costs to the consumers by raising their prices.
10 November 2006
The ecologists religion has gone way over the top. What they cannot understand is that HUMANS ARE NATURAL BEINGS TOO! We are part of nature - whatever we do is "natural". In fact as we are the only rational beings we are the ONLY entities which pay any regard whatever to the environment. Plants consume whatever they can - so do Great White Sharks - they just don't care! Sure we ought to carefully consider the results of our actions and proceed accordingly. But if we are to progress (and I want to, even if the greenies don't), if we are to feed the starving Africans, cure AIDS, and all those desirable things, we need to utilise what is available to us. But the environmentalists HATE humanity - they think the world would be better off without us. They'd put us back in caves - as long as no other animal wanted them. They'd put out the lights (that's actually being done in UK - they say carry a torch after 11 pm)). Freezing cold! You want a FIRE? - put it out - you're burning trees! And NO - you can't wear an animal skin - the animal needs it!
30 September 2007
wont change anything but the price of goods
1 May 2008
Money isn't going to do much (especially since it probably won't be spent on fixing that damage, if it is fixable at all)... They just need to stop damaging our precious environment.
16 May 2011
Reasons To Agree
Absolutely, and if those costs prove too high, then they'll then have good reason to persue less damaging processes. This one's a no-brainer. All that is standing in the way of it is the current econmic disincentives of taking action, and the challenge of making changes.
13 August 2005
Sounds good on the surface but I have been concerned about diesel costs as many of us have our home heating fueled by diesel (Christchurch). There is no smoke pollutants that is why they are given the clean green stamp by Environment Canterbury. I hope that if diesel is taxed that there is an alternative heating oil we can use to keep our homes warm eg rendered down plastics bags,oil made from soya bean fat or from meat fat or cooking oil. There has to be alternatives in place prior to taxing heavily so that the home owner is not caught up in this????
14 September 2005
In repsone to : "It is difficult to see in theese days of international trade, how one can have such a tax without damaging the country's international competitiveness." :IT IS HARD TO SSE IN THESE DAYS OF THE GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM BIODIVERSITY AND STABILITY CRASHING (DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITES) HOW ONE COULD NOT HAVE SUCH A TAX WITHOUT FURTHER HARMING THE WORLD ECOSYSTEM AND MAKING THE PLANET AN UN-INHABITABLE PLACE. -Party Vote GREEN: Look at their eco-tax policy of income tax cuts and introducing tax on pollution and other environmentally harmful activites. GO GREEN!
24 March 2006
Reasons for Remain Neutral
Ecological taxes are one way of dealing with an issue that must be dealt with. However, taxing these businesses may not be the best solution. Sure, maybe some will try to reduce their cost to the environment in order to reduce their costs economically, but some may just pay the fee and feel they've compinsated. These kinds of taxes may do more harm than good in raising the price of goods and discouraging people to seek more innovative sustainable solutions.
You can make your comments once you have voted.