The current over-use of the words, ‘carbon’ and ‘tax’ (particularly in the same sentence) has slightly confused me. If you are in Australia, know of Australia or have heard of Australia at one point in your life, it might interest you to know that our Prime Minister is trying to establish a carbon tax. There is a lot of debate going on around the topic with both major sides striving to score political advantage by sitting on every side of this particularly bizarre fence.
Yet I wonder…
During 2010 the Logan City Council introduced (or talked about introducing) a new fee/licence/permit for residents of the Council area who park a commercial vehicle on residential streets. The reasoning went something like this. If you park a vehicle on the street it will slow traffic, add noise and create a potential eyesore. To limit this, residents will now be required to purchase a permit which will enable them to park their work vehicle on the street.
Sounds great! Clean up the suburbs, reduce traffic and noise, etc, etc. Just one question (which may or may not lead to another)-> If I could park my work vehicle off the street, wouldn’t I already be doing so? In most cases you would think yes and even if no it doesn’t really matter. Charging people to park on the street is not going to make any difference if the only place they can park is right there on the street (that is why they park there in the first place). Let me rephrase. The only difference the permit seems to make is providing an extra source of income for the council with no discernible change to the situation.
Fly back with me to the carbon tax. We breathe out carbon dioxide and we use things that produce it as well. Leaving aside the obvious gaps in research that link global warming to carbon emissions, does this not resemble a tax that will assist the government in acquiring extra funds with no discernible change to the situation?
What do you think?