Welcome To Our Best Deals For Xmas Gifts Outlet Online Store Orders Over $150 , Enjoy Free Shipping,save $20 shipping cost!

women bags for sale

Published: Thursday 18 July, 2013

women bags for sale women bags for sale foreign policy address Climate Change

Th women bags for sale e US should lead by introducing legislation that it hopes other countries will adopt.

One great option is a tax on the gases that contribute to climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane.

Once you agree that climate change will cause some nonnegligible economic consequences, it up to women bags for sale policy makes to attempt to quantify that to the best of their ability and then tax it to make up for the consequences to the best of their ability. Granted there is a lot of uncertainty involved, so it just depends on how careful people want to be.

In practical terms, this works out to some added tax on gasoline, natural gas, coal, and farms with cows and other taxes to deal with emission sources. If any of these options are less politically feasible, go forward with the options that are tenable today and wait for enough momentum to build to for the others.

If people are concerned about economic pain, offset it with tax cuts. Raise the standard deduction so that everyone pays less in income taxes for example. Cut taxes for manufacturers if you worried they going to get hurt.

In general, fairness should be the principle that underlies tax policyand really a lot of public policy.

I think this is politically feasiblein time.

Political sentiment for things can change. For example, look at how sentiment has changed on gay marriage. In the last 16 years, support has gone from about 70 percent opposing it and 30% supporting it to a situation where more people support it than oppose it.1 That powerful.

If there is enough education and emotion on any given issue, sentiment can and should change in such a way that action is taken. Climate change policy is no exception.

If for whatever r women bags for sale eason, carbon taxes and other taxes aren passable, then it makes sense to subsidize green energy. The amount of the subsidy should be based on the amount of greenhouse gases that are saved with various technologies. This includes subsidies per amount of installed generating capacity of solar and wind plants. It may or may not be necessary to subsidize nuclear plants, given that that industry has other costs that must be borne.

The United States should strongly encourage world governments to copy these policies.

It should work with countries around the world to sign an emissions reduction treaty based with countries around the world adopting these principles as a framework.

If the US and other countries do this, there will be a social pressure to participate. Beyond that, this effort will raise awareness.

However, at the most basic level, countries want to do the right thing, and if these issues are brought to the forefront and compelling solutions are presented, their likelihood of adoption increases considerably.

The US should impose tariffs on imported goods from countries that do not have a climate change policy and whose exported costs are artificially low because of it.

If manufactured goods like cars are made in a country that doesn have a climate change policy, then those cars should be taxed to account for the differential in energy costs. If hamburgers are imported from another country that doesn have a policy of taxing methane emissions then a tax goes on those burgers to account for the cost savings.

It important that these tariffs not be too high. If the US tried to impose tariffs based on something other than achieving a level playing field, that would have the potential to start a trade war.

The US should work with other developed countries to provide financial incentives for developing countries to adopt climate change policies.

The basic idea is that reducing emissions in other countries is every bit as valuable as reducing emissions in the US.

The US can tax the world carbon emissions, nor should be able to levy international taxes.

One option could be to heavily subsidize companies that do most of their manufacturing in the US to allow them to sell their goods abroad, but I not convinced that the best approach because it seems unfair to incentivize production purely in one country.

Developed countries should provide subsidies for green power to be installed in poorer countries.

Developed countries could contribute to a fund that would be disbursed to developing countries, ideally targeting countries that can afford to subsidize green power. The subsidy would go towards paying for wind, solar, or other generation options that did not lead to the production of greenhouse gases.

The subsidy would be on a per kwh of installed power basis, which helps countries choose the best green power options for their specific region.

Countries that introduce a tax on greenhouse gases would be more likely to get the subsidies, creating a double win for them and for efforts to address climate change.

Solar energy production costs are falling radically and at some point will be broadly viable without subsidies. This effort will speed that transition. Similarly wind energy prices should continue to drop as well, and subsidies there may be beneficial for that trend. women bags for sale