Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.
I don't have a problem with that at all.

I DO have a problem with LEGISLATION. This makes it look like you are
doing something, when you are not, and has loads of unintended
consequences.

That would only be true of * TOKEN * legislation.


Is there any other sort these days?


Direct financial bias by the sensible application of
taxes and subsidies goes straight to the heart of the problem.

Don't ban 4x4's - Tax fuel
Don't force people to recycle. Tax *new* stuff.
Don't ban incandescent light bulbs. Tax electricity.

I'm sorry but taxing electricity to the point where people couldn't afford to run
incandescents would simply be ridiculous and get i the way of alot of sensible use of
electricity.


You don't tax to the point where they can't afford to run them: You tax
to the point where enough people don't run them to achieve the lowering
of energy use you want to achieve. Or since they make **** all
difference to anything, to the point where people start switching OFF
lights they are not using. Or stop using electricity in some other way.

Heck it works with monetary supply - raise interest rates and people
stop borrowing money. Not ban loans.



I'd simply put a tax of say £1 / $2 on inefficient light bulbs. Graduated perhaps by
wattage and luminous efficiency.


Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE.

History shows this just hurts the poor.


No, it would actually improve matters.

Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your
doorstep.

If everyone is getting a pension regardless of age, then there are o
more poor, just a cheap subsidised labour pool

Make people cheaper than machines, and soak up all those who can;t do
much more than use their muscles.

Income tax plus unemployment subsidies plus minimum wage legislation
makes it cost effective to stay out of work unless you can achieve a
fairly substantial wage, and means employers simply cannot get certain
low paying jobs done.

Remove all labor taxes, and all minimum wages, and give people
unemployment beneft (now called we dont care if you work or not benefit)
REGARDLESS of whether they work or not, and suddenly there is no reason
not to employ someone,and no reason not to work.

This is already a de facto sitiation in the OAP market. Heaps of OAPS
work for low wages to 'top up' their pensions. much of it on a cash in
hand basis ..


Don't susbidise windmills either, just tax fossil fuel. If windmills are
cost effective, people will build em. If they are not, they won't.

I agree with that bit.

Graham