"Tax" is such a harsh word.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2010/hardisty.cfm

Would you pay more for certain products to save the planet? That’s the question behind the burgeoning carbon-offset industry — proponents pay more money for carbon-producing activities (such as flying), with the idea that the carbon emissions will be balanced out by funding for alternative energy sources. At the same time, economists and climate scientists agree that a carbon tax would be the most effective means through which the U.S. could lower carbon emissions and pay for alternative energy production. However, politicians are reluctant to propose a carbon tax because taxes tend to be unpopular with constituents, especially with Republican voters. But does word choice, such as offset versus tax, really make a difference? And in addition, does our political affiliation influence how we respond to certain labels?

Spoiler alert: Yes, and yes.

[Azisien]

The US and Canada need a carbon tax bad.

Of course, I'm less and less a fan of the over-emphasis on carbon dioxide directing environmental policy. There's plenty of other problems to address. I would have to be convinced the proceeds of my carbon tax do go towards worthwhile ventures. Worthwhile to me being sustainable forestry and fishing, increasing efficiency of homes, vehicles, and cities, investment in research, development, and implementation of more renewable energy sources.