I ask this because I think a %26#039;green%26#039; tax on paper at about 25% would cut down people%26#039;s use of the stuff, and although our morning paper may perhaps cost more, if newspaper editors were to cut out the crap in newspapers, by about 25%, that would balanced the increased costs.
What do you think?
Additional Details
4 months ago
Dr Schmoo - it was just an idea. Sorry if I%26#039;ve upset you. That was not my intention.Forest Stewardship Council
http://www.fsc.org/en/
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (1)
-
That phrase if goofy. ANY forest is sustainable if you replant the trees. They grow back!
By the way, who should get that %26quot;green%26quot; tax in your opinion? Are you proposing that the incompetent, corrupt government would spend it wisely? Making things more expensive through taxes only results in more bloated government, and less prosperity from which real %26quot;green%26quot; solutions can be funded. Most people dont want to live in a sewer, so the market will support cleanups. That is why the nations with the most centrally controlled economies, (i.e. communist or socialist) have the worst record of taking care of the environment. More taxes going to blowhards like Al Gore and the rest of that methane spewing bunch is not a real solution. Allowing people to choose to care for the environment by informing them, and providing the products they need (NOT compact flourescents, low-flush (no-flush) toilets and all that foolishness) to do so.
PS. One of the best way for newspaper editors to cut %26quot;crap%26quot; out of the newspapers would be to stop publishing all that nonsense about %26quot;global warming/cooling/exploding etc.