Carbon Tax = A preclude (excuse) to energy conservation tax
-
I refer to The Strait Times article on 02 November 2010, titled “A price on carbon if climate pact is linked". PM Lee stated that a carbon tax or “cap and trade” system will be imposed to reduce greenhouse emissions if “all countries pledge to curb greenhouse gas emissions”. This will translate to higher business costs and higher costs of living for Singaporeans since our main source of energy in Singapore is generated by fossil fuels.
I would also like to highlight the possible link between carbon tax, which is at a country level, versus energy conservation tax, which is at the individual level.
I had stated several years back that during one union meeting, a certain minister mentioned that the Govt was considering implementing an energy conservation tax (much like the current water conservation tax) on households. Fortunately or unfortunately, the USA housing crisis hit, and this idea was put on the backburner.
Several years forward, they are now talking about a carbon tax. Carbon tax is based on a country's carbon emissions, determining whether the country has exceeded its predetermined carbon emission levels, and if so, the country has to pay to 'buy' carbon emission quota from another country that did not exceed its predetermined carbon emission levels.
This carbon tax can easily be linked to the need for an energy conservation tax, since it would be easy to justify by saying that all individuals should do their part, so putting an energy conservation tax on households would help the country to reduce its carbon emission levels.
In short, if Singapore does not exceed its predetermined carbon emission levels, the govt will get additional revenue from another country buying its quota, PLUS the energy conservation tax revenues collected from the people
IF Singapore exceeds its predetermined carbon emission levels, then the govt will use the energy conservation tax revenues to pay for buying carbon emission quota from another country. Given our govt's intelligent way of calculating the energy conservation tax, I will say that it's possible they will still have additional revenue after paying for the carbon quota
In both cases, a win-win for the Govt. More revenues and better reputation for Singapore on the global platform (green country).
-
got balls just ban private cars... knn talk so much....
-
Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):
got balls just ban private cars... knn talk so much....
Since when did they ban cigarettes?cigarettes are an impt source of revenue
private cars are the same.
-
Means another excuse to take more $$$ from the people.
How does the carbon tax benefit the environment?
All the money goes into research for alternative sources of energy?
If you need to use electricity, you would still use it, it's not like having carbon tax families will use solar power to cook their rice.
It just means LHL can collect more taxes to pay his million dollar salary.
-
it's all about money.
Ecology and economics move in opposite directions.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Since when did they ban cigarettes?cigarettes are an impt source of revenue
private cars are the same.
hanor hanor... just like those legalised chicken and casino...... except they havent legalised drugs yet only to help the poor.. knn.. -
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Means another excuse to take more $$$ from the people.
How does the carbon tax benefit the environment?
All the money goes into research for alternative sources of energy?
If you need to use electricity, you would still use it, it's not like having carbon tax families will use solar power to cook their rice.
It just means LHL can collect more taxes to pay his million dollar salary.
The concept of carbon tax is that countries get a pre-determined level each year, depending on size, population, etc. And every year (or a few years), most likely, the pre-determined level gets reduced.
The intention is for it to work as a motivation for countries to work towards reducing their carbon emissions, thereby helping Earth on a global scale.
It recognizes that it will not be overnight success to reduce carbon emissions, but is instead a practical method of reducing emissions in the long-term.
It taxes countries if they overshoot their predetermined levels, acting as a deterrent and making them think of ways to reduce their emissions. If a country has lower emissions, then it helps to bring more revenue to that country. It's more taxing to industrialized (modernized) countries than poorer countries, thereby working also as a way of redistributing income to the poorer countries.
In Singapore's case, it's very easy to link this carbon tax to energy conservation tax, so that households all contribute towards reducing emissions.
But what's the biggest joke about carbon tax? USA and China. Both of these countries, ranked 1 and 2 in carbon emissions in the world respectively, refuse to join this pact.
-
Wah, when I said last time that they will soon tax the air we breathe, I was just joking.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Wah, when I said last time that they will soon tax the air we breathe, I was just joking.
and you have to feedback...
-
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANOTHER PAY RISE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LONG LIVE LHL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by SevenEleven:
and you have to feedback...How to complain?
We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.
That's how our body works.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
How to complain?
We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.
That's how our body works.
become "vegetable".....take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. -
Lets have lesser people in Singapore.. so we wun need to consume so much energy?
-
If we have to pay for breathing, I believe we need to catagorise, like big and small car road taxes. So for those who are fat, big size and breathe or snore heavily will have to pay more tax, those like me, slim, breathe a little and no snoring will pay less.