Monday, December 10, 2007

New baby = environmental tax?

Well, they are seriously considering this in Australia. If you have more than two children, you would be forced to pay a $5000 (Australian Dollars) baby tax at birth and an additional $800 per year in order to offset the carbon usage that the kid will supposedly use.

Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

OK... think between the lines a moment. Let's skip over the debate about the legitimacy of the idea of carbon taxes, etc. on this and look simply at the money flow...
  1. The carbon tax is paid to the Australian government.
  2. The Australian government pays Mother Nature. Uh.... then what?

I suppose the government could do something token with the money like planting trees or something - but would they? And how would you know that your $5000 + $800 per year is actually being used in such a way as to truly replace the carbon your rug rats are burning? Do they give you a receipt? Do they give you a little framed certificate like the Star Registry people that give you the directions to your kid's particular tree(s)? Or does the money disappear into the coffers?

The bottom line is that they are just collecting more money that they are then not forced to be accountable for. Nothing new here.

I did like one quote in the article, however.

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said.

How brilliant is that?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Bravo on your hypocrisy.

You opened by saying "Well, they are seriously considering this in Australia". That is a blatant lie. Nowhere in that article does it state there is serious consideration.

It was one professor expressing an opinion he wrote in a journal. Are you suggesting that every journal article is the policy of a government agency?

Perhaps it is you who should be taxed for the hot air you're creating - by bashing that strawman you've created.