I can see a definite appeal to the idea of using a carbon tax—a load on the price of goods and services to better reflect the damage done to the environment to produce them—as a tool to encourage conservation.
However, as with many ideas, it certain seems possible to take the concept a bit too far. For example, the Ozzie ABC News reported on this idea from the land down under:
The parents of any baby born today in Australia will receive a Federal Government bonus of $4,187. In July next year, that’ll go up to $5,000.
It’s a controversial policy but the argument that it is environmentally unfriendly hasn’t often been raised.
Now though writing in the Medical Journal of Australia Barry Walters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, is making that case.
Dr Walters says every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax. He goes on to argue that those purchasing condoms or undergoing sterilisation procedures should be awarded carbon credits.
As if I weren’t already skeptical towards the concept of “carbon credits” (it seems like a good idea in theory, but I wonder how much of the money spent on credits today goes to actually offsetting carbon, or at least towards realistic science in support of conservation)…the idea of offsetting one’s carbon consumption with the purchase of a prophylactic or undergoing a bit of snippage also seems over-the-top.