START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

This group aims to promote free and open debate about science, correct common misconceptions and communicate current scientific understanding of important issues. You can explore the boundaries between science, ethics, religion, history, and the arts.
Members: 342  Code of Conduct
Visibility: open
Membership: open
Group Email:


Group Billboard

OzPolitic - Science and technology discussion - Evolution is not a scientific theory

Group rules - please refer to the COC linked above, particularly item 1 iii)

In addition, try to keep different issues in their respective threads. Some leeway will be given on this, but if the topic changes completely to one that is pre-existing please take it to the other thread. Do not start multiple threads on the same topic, except to deal with long threads. This is to prevent thread hijacking and cut back on the 'never ending issues'. Please use descriptive/relevant thread titles.

Please use the community watch feature first if you feel a post is inappropriate.

Astronomy, Biology, Technology, Geology, Physics, Science Teaching, Philosophy, Boycotts, Electoral Reform, Australia, International Politics, The Feral Peril, Green Tax Shift, The Nuclear Option?, Fishing, Care2 Quote, Visually Impaired Persons, Ethics in Progressivism
Group Communication  

  Discussion  (Create New Topic) Posts Last Post
science and the open mind 75 7 years ago
petitions 13 6 years ago
evolution, ID, creationism threads 4 7 years ago
Climate change and energy threads 6 5 years ago
intelligent design, part II 152 6 years ago
Care2 discriminates against gay people 4 7 years ago
I hoping this will be beter? [peak oil] 85 7 years ago
evolution is not a scientific theory 131 7 years ago
evolution, science, the UCS and your children's ed... 11 9 years ago
More Discussions  »
Host Sharebook
{ else }   Blog: Green Tax Shift  
A Green Tax Shift is a way to address global warming, create jobs, save the environment, strengthen our economy and reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil, all at the same time. For greenhouse emissions, it could involve reducing income tax for low income earners and increasing the tax on coal (=electricity), oil, gas, beef, milk and cement. The increase in tax on each product would depend on the amount of greenhouse emissions from it. The decrease in income tax would be set so that government revenue was unchanged. Income tax at the low end would be the best option for the decrease because it would result in the least change in the distribution of wealth and would create more jobs. Petrol will not bear the brunt of the price increases because it causes only a small fraction of our greenhouse emissions.

This method of reducing greenhouse emissions is preferred by economists. If you consider the negative impacts of global warming to have real economic value (ie, would people pay to get rid of them?) then it will actually strengthen the economy. This is because not charging companies for the right to pollute is effectively subsidising pollution.

A green tax shift is better than carbon trading because society is effectively renting out the right to pollute, rather than giving the rights away for free. It allows you to reduce other taxes to offset the increase in the price of petrol etc, rather than just having an increase in price with the extra money going to oil companies. It is also the more moral choice, because the right to clean air should rest first and foremost with the public, rather than the right to pollute resting with companies.

A Green Tax Shift is more flexible, as the taxes can be adjusted as is necessary or as more information about global warming becomes available. Overtaxing slightly will not harm the economy as it will just be an alternative form of revenue raising. Carbon trading may require governments to buy back emissions rights at hugely inflated prices (= profits for greenhouse emitters). Or, as is currently the case, the emissions rights may become worthless due to minor adjustments made by industry that have a big impact on effiency, or other changes that limit industrial activity in participating countries.

A Green Tax Shift does not require international agreements because it does not place a country at a competitive disadvantage.

Green Tax Shift

Read the statement of economic consensus:

sign the petition:

A follow-up share:
Posted: Aug 23, 2006 5:40pm | (8) | (0) |  
Message: petition: Protect the reputation of science and the UCS

Above all else, the Union of Concerned Scientists promotes reasoned debate about important scientific issues and evidence, and the promotion of views founded in science and reasoned debate among the wider community.

The UCS group, one of care2’s ‘featured groups’ does the exact opposite. In doing so, it is harming the reputation of the UCS and science in general. It is controlled by a small clique of friends. The first response these people take to a disagreement is to hurl a constant stream of abuse at the person they disagree with. This has been known to go on for weeks. If this person does not cease expressing their views, the hosts ban discussion of the topic, even if it is relevant to the UCS. The hosts demand that the topic be taken elsewhere, but forbid links being posted to groups where the topics can be discussed. These rules are made up and enforced arbitrarily. If questioned about this, the host responds by openly lying about her actions, then by launching a personal attack and using threats and intimidation to prevent the person from responding to the personal criticism. Then they ban the person, and delete all the posts where the person was abused and allow people to continue saying whatever they want about the person in order to justify the ban. The group promotes the idea that scientific views should be promoted as dogma – no attempts to explain or justify, just personally attack anyone you disagree with. 

The host has openly joked about letting her friends bash people she doesn’t like. Her stated policy is to let her friends respond abusively to posts she doesn’t like, so that she can use it as an excuse to delete the post. In doing so she encourages abusive responses. Such behaviour brings shame upon the Union of Concerned Scientists and damages the reputation of science among care2 members.

I ask the care2 admin to either remove the group from the ‘featured groups’ list or remove any reference to the Union of Concerned Scientists from the group banner and home page. Specifically, the following statement is very misleading:

“This is a group for people who support the ideas, principles and goals of Union of Concerned Scientists.”

“We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking”

The following statement is also misleading, as by encouraging personal attacks the actions of the hosts undermine rather than enforce the code of conduct:

“moderation of posts or action taken by the hosts is to maintain the Care2 Connect Code of Conduct”

Posted: Nov 16, 2005 2:11am | (6) | (0) |  
Message: What do I expect from group members?  
Many hosts expect active participation from group members and desire constant activity on their groups. I don't. Many people I invite to my groups express concern that they don't have the time to devote to more groups. My groups are their for the benefit of members and I am happy for them to get something from the group in their own time and return nothing, even if they ask lots of questions. In many of my groups I would rather have a small amount of information that is of timeless value rather than a constant stream of chatter (though I don't mind if you just want to chat). I welcome debates as they help to ensure that the information provided is sound. I often rewrite my posts after lengthy debates as I find that I can express my views much more clearly and concisely and back them up more rigourously.

But don't be afraid to contribute if you have something!
Posted: Nov 4, 2005 2:16am | (3) | (0) |  
Alert: Freediver's petitions  
Action Request:Petition
Location:United States
Please sign my petitions:

Kangaroo meat:

Feral animals:

Science education: 

Protect the reputation of science and the UCS:

my hompage
Posted: Nov 3, 2005 5:38pm | (5) | (0) |  
more »
From the Web

Care2 News Network
Death of the Bees, US Government Approves Another Toxic Insecticide 1 year ago
Should drug firms make payments to doctors? 1 year ago
Gaza Suffering- Toxic Water 6 1 year ago
Woman could face prison after saving neglected dog! Drop charges against Judy Camp! 1 year ago
Raise Awareness About Pangolin Trafficking - ForceChange 1 year ago
Member Sharebook
( Use tag: *group:scientia* )

There are currently no Shares tagged by members of this group.
No friend members
All members in

Our sponsors help keep this site free!


Our sponsors help keep this site free!