Carbon Taxes Kill the Environment

Carbon taxes make things cost more, that is the idea. And that is the reason why carbon taxes kill the environment.

things “….will become more expensive” – Australian government website

Before I explain how carbon taxes kill the environment we first have to understand what increasing the cost of something means.

First of all, what is money?

Money is labour and/or property in a form that is easy to trade between people.

Taxes mean you have to pay more for something. This means more of your labour and/or property is required to buy the same product.

Okay, so how does me working more or using more of my property to buy something kill the environment?

Say for example you need to pay an extra 50 dollars to buy a cooker for your home, that means you have to use 50 dollars more of your property (for example you may own livestock, forestry, coal, iron ore and so on) or you may need to work a bit longer to make that 50 dollars (when you work you consume electricity, petrol to and from work, you need to eat more to replace lost energy, you need buy tyres sooner for your car because you have to work an extra day, you spend less time with your family and so on).

So you can see if you need to pay an extra 50 dollars for something you have to use more of the earth’s limited resources and you have less social time (which has its own knock on effects).

So it is impossible to conserve the environment by paying more for something through taxes. Environmental taxes actually have the opposite effect of their stated aims and actually lead to more of the earth’s resources being consumed than before the taxes were implemented.

Going back to the Australian government’s website about carbon taxes.

I want to pick out a few sentences which it claims to back up its claims.

Right now, when you purchase a product that relies on carbon-intensive materials or manufacturing processes, the price you pay does not represent the cost incurred by the environment. The iron ore used to create the product could be sourced from the highest polluting mine in the world –

to pollute you need to consume materials and or waste materials, this is why the world’s largest resource companies are constantly investing in technologies that allow them to mine more cost effectively. Make no mistake BHP Billiton do not pursue mining methods which are more efficient because they are more friendly to the environment, although that may play a part, they pursue new technologies because if they pollute less it means they are wasting less energy and resources.

The pursuit of low-cost is the most cost-effective way of conserving the environment.

The article continues

the electricity used to power the manufacturing plant could be provided by the dirtiest coal mine in the world.

The power company is not using coal from the dirtiest coal mine in the world because it is bad for the environment, they are using it because it is the most cost effective way of producing electricity which means this “dirty” (however dirtiness is measured) either takes less labour to produce (which save resources) or it consume less resources to get the coal out of the ground.

To say forcing people to pay more for something saves the world’s resources is as false as it is possible to be.

Imagine the poorest country in the world. Would you agree that the businesses operating in that country need to work in the cheapest, most cost-effective way?

If so, what would this look like? For a start you would not see new things in that country. Everything you see would be secondhand, for example, second-hand lorries, second-hand computers and even second-hand clothes.

Second hand things are the cheapest to use because the biggest cost involved in machinery (ie buying it new) is paid by someone else.

Now imagine you told these people that the best way to consume even less resources ie to make things cheaper, would be to pay a carbon tax.

Do you think the people in this country would have to consume more or less of the world’s resources to maintain the same levels of services?

If your answer is the same as mine you have to call out these environmental taxes for what they are, something that consumes the worlds resources at a faster rate, not something that helps save the planet.

They are the opposite of environmentally friendly.

 

Get the latest updates in your inbox