And we thought we learn from our mistakes!
Or did we say history repeats itself?
Whichever way it is, while we could juggle our way in this play of words, I still find it hard to comprehend how one can slash upon a Baby Tax.
This bizarre stunt, which was earlier tried by the Chinese Government (to address different issues and via varied means), is now being contemplated by the doctors in Australia.
Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters stated that every couple with more than 2 children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime. And he believes that families should pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 per child.
Excuse Me!
While I am sure this is just the beginning of a debate (and I will keep away from the ethical issues here), this story in a way completed the circle by linking baby tax to carbon emissions and global warming, especially when this news was published alongside the reports of announcements of Nobel Peace Prize - Where Al Gore and Pachauri shared the honor for warning the world against the severe consequences of global warming!!
The focus of discussion in Oslo was clearly that technological progresses alone cannot stop global warming, and instead we also need to adjust our lifestyles. However seems like this suggestion was taken way too literally and way too far. While I am not sure if I would have really bothered about the Australian scientists silly propositions, I could not ignore it any more given what happened in China. Thanks to our core terms @ ISB and some shocking videos courtesy youtube, this seemingly stupid suggestion did a flashback for me – Term 4 Gov, Society & Biz Class
Coming back to current events, the Nobel Peace prize ceremony, as anticipated, did underscore the work being done on hammering out a post-Kyoto Protocol framework to address global warming. And that makes me wonder again – How fair is it to set national targets and set up an emission trading system? What’s the logical basis for deciding emission quotas? And what are the implications of such legislation measures?
Some relevant links:
News Australia
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html
Shocking China Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0u7_afmT-8&feature=related
Innovative Suggestions
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Or did we say history repeats itself?
Whichever way it is, while we could juggle our way in this play of words, I still find it hard to comprehend how one can slash upon a Baby Tax.
This bizarre stunt, which was earlier tried by the Chinese Government (to address different issues and via varied means), is now being contemplated by the doctors in Australia.
Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters stated that every couple with more than 2 children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime. And he believes that families should pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 per child.
Excuse Me!
While I am sure this is just the beginning of a debate (and I will keep away from the ethical issues here), this story in a way completed the circle by linking baby tax to carbon emissions and global warming, especially when this news was published alongside the reports of announcements of Nobel Peace Prize - Where Al Gore and Pachauri shared the honor for warning the world against the severe consequences of global warming!!
The focus of discussion in Oslo was clearly that technological progresses alone cannot stop global warming, and instead we also need to adjust our lifestyles. However seems like this suggestion was taken way too literally and way too far. While I am not sure if I would have really bothered about the Australian scientists silly propositions, I could not ignore it any more given what happened in China. Thanks to our core terms @ ISB and some shocking videos courtesy youtube, this seemingly stupid suggestion did a flashback for me – Term 4 Gov, Society & Biz Class
Coming back to current events, the Nobel Peace prize ceremony, as anticipated, did underscore the work being done on hammering out a post-Kyoto Protocol framework to address global warming. And that makes me wonder again – How fair is it to set national targets and set up an emission trading system? What’s the logical basis for deciding emission quotas? And what are the implications of such legislation measures?
Some relevant links:
News Australia
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html
Shocking China Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0u7_afmT-8&feature=related
Innovative Suggestions
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
2 comments:
aha...a post after a while and that too a thought provoking one! It is a pity that this proposal has come from a university professor who has presumably taken up the task of providing direction to multiple young minds. The video was shocking and it just so clearly highlights the short-sightedness of such thinking. Sorry for being geeky, but this is like realising that 0 is a trivially solves the equation and claiming to have solved a complex non-linear problem. What we need is a techno-social revolution. Revolution in the way we think towards global warming. The Nobel laurettes have surely set the alarm ringing and its on us to realise that its time to wake up. From the tech perspective, it is surely possible for the governing agencies to urge breakthroughs by providing the right incentives. The US (and the whole world now) has seen a major impetus towards nanotechnology just by channeling funds in the right manner. The same could be done in this case. I realise that tech is just one side of the coin and the issue is much larger. On the social side, its a matter of realising that the fruits of out efforts towards reducing global warming are to be reaped not by us, but the generations to come. and what the tax implies is well satarised by Jonathan Swift in his proposal.
As far as the post itself goes, you have linked things really well here and frankly, I would not have spent so much time reading/knowing about this issue had it not been for your post :)
Good show!
Danke :-)
Even we were shocked when we came to terms with the fact. And had it not been the GSB lectures I would prolly have never known.
Post a Comment