Before we start talking about a global warming brand of tax or taxation, maybe we should ask ourselves IF we want some international agency taxing us at all. Let's see, we have property taxes, city and county taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, excise and a host of other taxes. Why not a global warming tax? Maybe a Milky Way tax too?
How about a 2012 Defense fund tax too!
At last week's Bali international meeting on global warming, a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
Sounds fair doesn't it?
Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told the panel discussion that at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” Now e know why Bush and the U.S. is against the tax! :-)
The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.” The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report. Most representatives beleive that a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue.
A funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs has been on the agenda for years. But now, the U.S. under immense pressure ahs agreed to "look into the possibilities", which doesn't mean the U.S. will go along with it. Can America agree with such inclusiveness (can the religious fundamentalists)?
Seems as though to whom much is given, much is required!
ernie@lrchouston.com
