?Science? 

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

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6387&pst=363834&archival=

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”