give the carbon tax higher

Carbon Tax Best Way to Set Price of Carbon
In order to get on with major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, within both a still functional biosphere and viable capitalistic system, the price of emitting carbon must be set -- and quickly and accurately. There are two primary methods of doing so - the establishment of carbon markets [search] and the levying of carbon taxes [search]. The conservative newspaper Financial Times favors carbon taxes, as does Ecological Internet within our Lincoln Plan carbon tax campaign, and today ran an interesting series of articles which essentially find a carbon tax to be easier and more effective in pricing carbon. A recent report likens the individual market in carbon credits to "Offsetting Indulgences for your Climate Sins". The Financial Times was equally skeptical, as their investigation of carbon credit trading concludes: "Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on 'carbon credit' projects that yield few if any environmental benefits." They found some carbon reductions paid for in carbon offset schemes are never carried out, and others would have been made anyway. The European carbon market which has been in existence the longest and is most established has given out so many carbon credits that very little reductions in emissions were necessary by industry. Ecological Internet supports a global carbon market that is well regulated, but not as a replacement for carbon taxes, which we are convinced will address the issue of pricing carbon more quickly, effectively and simply. We concur that "while short-term politics favour markets, taxes would be better in the long term because industry needs certainty for investments... A government committing to painful taxes signals the seriousness of its intentions..."
comments (0) search
Climate Change Threatens Global Security
Even as the Bush government continues its criminal climate change obstruction [search], yet another U.S. institution has entered the fray regarding the seriousness of dramatically reducing carbon emissions to mitigate against the worst possible impacts of sudden or abrupt climate change. This time is is eleven former high-ranking U.S. military and international security issue specialists warning that "climate change threatens to prolong the war on terrorism and foster political instability that some governments will be unable to cope with... it has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today." In the United States this is likely to play itself out with severe fluctuations in water from drought to flooding. These are the sort of fighting words of apocalyptic warning that have gotten me in trouble for years in my personal writings. Through its disruption of ecological systems, economies and societies; climate change has the potential to gravely impact international security [search]. This is why on the spurring of the UK, climate change will shortly be taken up by the Security Council of the United Nation. People from Al Gore to Military personnel can see the threat to our very being, yet from 1990-2005 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up 16%. What a myopic, slovenly country that can know all the implications of inaction, studying them with weekly new reports of ever more detail and certainly, and yet fail so utterly to make the changes in energy sources, conservation and efficiency necessary to avert global crisis. Yet a nascent protest movement is emerging in the U.S. [more] that by taking to the streets just may be enough to stop the U.S. from hindering efforts to save the Planet.

from : http://www.climateark.org/