The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim wrote:

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g.
actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy
more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like
that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free..

We don;t need legislation, we need taxation.

If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in
the car to do it.

Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price.

As I have said elsewhere, whether you achieve this by a tax or a subsidy, overall in
the total scheme of things, it makes little difference. They're just names for
redirecting the flow of money. Some names may be more palatable than others.

Graham