On the other hand, having a tax on pollution can have its risks. A news article in Paris, France stated that they have tried to apply a 'green tax' on diesel. "Rioters torched cars and buildings in central Paris on Saturday following two weeks of protests caused partly by higher fuel taxes which Macron says are needed to fight climate change. Some protesters called for him to resign." (Felix, www.reuters.com, 2018). People that affected by the taxes in Paris didn't take too kindly to the new laws, causing riots, destroying property, and even asking for the president to resign.
My position on the situation is that I am in favor of a pollution tax, despite the risks that would come such as the angry protesters and riots. With the tax being present, it will help the environment in the long run. Some people aren't too fond of having their means of transportation taxed, but there are other ways to get somewhere without the need of pumping pollutants in the air.
But what if people dont have different ways of trasnportation such as a train, or a bus.
ReplyDeleteI disagree because then poor people will not be able to pay for gas and electric cars are not cheap enough for them to buy yet. It would help the environment some but our technology isn't there yet.
ReplyDeleteI disagree and think that there a lot more negatives than just protests and riots. One negative being that the tax won't affect the upper class at all and so the tax will just hurt the lower and middle class. Also A higher tax on gas could lead to people buying smaller more efficient vehicles which could end up hurting companies when they aren't able to sell their bigger more expensive cars.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, even if there are other forms of transportation some aren't available to the common people (Iowa doesn't have strong public transportation). And with the other forms of transportation like buses or subways they are still polluting the air the same way gasoline for cars would.
ReplyDelete