I am a pretty big fan of the principle that the polluter pays. In the US it seems that an inverse principle is currently in action as the wealthy, and dirty, oil industry is subsidised the the tune of $16bn USD per year:
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US House passes clean energy bill
Is this kind of subsidy limited to the US? I hope so. I also hope that US legislators do indeed end this madness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Maybe you should do a little more research before reflexively concluding that the subsidies to the oil industry are out of line.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa390/pa390index.html
Moreover, the "polluter pays" BS doesn't always work out in reality the way it does in rhetoric. A large family in one SUV uses less fuel than a large family in two smaller cars. Why should the family who are saving fuel by using one vehicle and combining trips pay penalties? That's not egalitarian, and it certainly isn't a decision made on the basis of fuel consumption per passenger. It's downright unjust, imo.
Stick to smalltalk, dipstick. More gst, less cincom.
Well, if the oil industry is not getting a subsidy, and the US legislators remove it, then no harm done, right? So let's remove it.
I agree with you about the 1 car/2 car thing. "Polluter Pays" just says that the more you pollute the more you should pay, so in your example the 2 car family would pay more.
Post a Comment