Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services

The cost of the goods and services we consume takes into account the resources, labour used to make them, as well as the transportation and administration costs involved. However, neither the consumer nor the producer pays for the environmental cost created by providing that good or service. This means the market price of many goods and services is lower than the “real” cost. Many polluting industries even get subsidies, further distorting the market price. However, many of those industries are critical to developing countries (e.g. agricultural exports from Africa), and adding carbon costs would keep those countries poor. Adding a carbon cost to everything would mean creating inflation in the price of products and services around the world with the result that no one can afford as much as they were previously able too.

Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services

Yes because... No because...

People need to become aware of what they are actually buying

Unless we need to pay for buying harmful goods and services, we will not become aware or we will simply ignore their negative effect on our long-term well-being. In a world of consumerism taxes on consumption hurt the most, indeed -we will not afford as much as we did before. But we need less consumption instead of 'retail sclavaigsm' to be happy anyway.

At the same time, People do not have to become poorer because of carbon taxation. Replace tax on capital and labour with equivalent tax on carbon. People will have the incentive to make the environmentally-friendly choice and eventually end up with more wealth and better health. Economic growth might become a thing of the past, pursuit of what really matters might be on its way.

Once crop/food prices escalate to being almost unaffordable , farmers have the incentive to produce crops with greater carbon efficiency to avoid going into a loss[since crops sell at (approximately perfect)market value].

Terms like Rich, Poor, etc. are not defined economically and vary from nation to nation. A person considered poor in one nation, might actually be defined as middle class, or well off in another. Hence generalizing the terms would be unfair specially for the developing nations.

Secondly, the area of human enterprise affected the most by climate change and global warming is food production from the agricultural sector. It is ironical that food production contributes significantly to global warming through deforestation for agricultural land and other processes.

Now consider this scenario, dwindling agricultural production due to climate change is escalating the price of food crops all over and making them increasingly inaccessible to the common masses.

Adding a carbon cost to them would be highly idiotic.

Secondly in an economy recovering from recession, the enhancement of cost of goods would badly affect the recovery, because simply put, when things get expensive, most people buy only the essentials .

As an alternative i propose carbon concessions in products that are carbon sensitive. This shall be achieved through tax rebates from the government and greatly help green entrepreneurship in the world economy.

Talking about the carbon costs themselves, what guarantee is there that they will be channelized honestly into the fight against climate change, and not just increase the profit of the manufacturers and retailers.

Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services

Yes because... No because...

Carbon Costs should be added to goods sold in cities and developed countries for its time for man to learn a hard lesson.

Carbon costs would not be included in all goods, but in certain goods which come from areas under threat of climate chnage. Carbon costs would be added only after it goes through strict chnanels of monitoring and certification, hence the argument of " Carbon costs being used by manufacturers for their benifit " is non existant.

No solution for climate change for climate change (on a global scale) can be made a reality if there are no Universal laws governing it!

Moreover, it is human nature to use more than want he needs. It is our greed which has brought us to a situation where we have to fight the climate. For the last half a century, scientists have been predicting climate change and the last two decades various means of reducing carbon emissions have been attempted in vain.

Enough time has lapsed for mankind to learn a soft lesson. Now is the point of no return.... even if all the wars in every corner of the world cease for good, man will have the greatest challenge in history... THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE! Unfortunately our powers are limited in comparison to that of nature.

Reducing carbon consumption is the best solution to mitigate climate change. Even if we stop all industires ....there is enough carbon in the atmosphere to largescale climate catastrophies. So WE need to stop carbon emission... The best being to add carbon cost to products and services coming from areas which are affected by climate change, and also those which are directly responsible for contributing large scale towards global warming. All food product, especially processed food should have this cost. However, this cost should be regulated as per income of individuals. The higher the food mile.... higher the cost.

This cost could then go towards rehabilitating affected areas and people.
Carbon conssesions is again a borderline solution..... people to switch towards ecofriendly products is not practical on a large scale when they have easy alternatives at a price only slightly higher.
Recession is a phenomenon that can be won over. It is important that the right decisions on mitigating climate chnage be made now.... for another recession could come our way souly brought about by climate change and food shortage

This is the time for customized and harsh yet sensible action!

No, carbon costs should be charged to producers not buyers(If buyers need the product it will sell anyway,being price inelastic and if they do not need the product then demand for it will fall and factories will have incentive to use more polluting less expensive(perhaps illegal/illicit/exploitative) means to make the product)

However, if factories/companies/producers are charged as in cap and trade. Then they understand that the only way to get out of extra costs based on emissions(or other polluting behavior)is cut down.

This way companies/producers are directly liable/accountable and have incentive to care for the Earth/GAYA

Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services

Yes because... No because...

Carbon costs would cause an economic slowdown in a recession prone economy

Preventing deforestation to create farmland would be one of the goals of adding in carbon emissions. While food production does create a lot of carbon emissions it also reduces carbon emissions, essentially all food that comes from plants also soak up C02 as they are growing, this would need to be taken off the CO2 cost that is added on.

Essentially this would encourage agriculture that is more efficent, i.e. more vegetarian based rather than producing meat. Which is something that has to happen anyway. And would discourage producers from sending their food long distances, particularly by plane as a lot of food travels at the moment. This would mean the developed world would need to give up on the idea of having all kinds of fruit and veg all year round.

Also it should be noted that the title does not include the word 'all' in it. This implies that there could be some products that are not included, and goods that are vital for survival such as providing clean water, food, and medicines are likely to be excluded.

Terms like Rich, Poor, etc. are not defined economically and vary from nation to nation. A person considered poor in one nation, might actually be defined as middle class, or well off in another. Hence generalizing the terms would be unfair especially for developing nations.

Secondly, the area of human enterprise affected the most by climate change and global warming is food production from the agricultural sector. It is ironical that food production contributes significantly to global warming through deforestation for agricultural land and other processes.
Now consider this scenario, dwindling agricultural production due to climate change is escalating the price of food crops all over and making them increasingly inaccessible to the common masses.

Adding a carbon cost to them would be highly idiotic.
Secondly in an economy recovering from recession, the enhancement of cost of goods would badly affect the recovery, because simply put, when things get expensive, most people buy only the essentials .

As an alternative I propose carbon concessions in products that are carbon sensitive. This shall be achieved through tax rebates from the government and greatly help green entrepreneurship in the world economy.

Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services

Yes because... No because...

REAL INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IS AN ESSENTIAL ISSUE

Simply because it requires a lot of international cooperation which is not necessarily going to be easy and may well lead to some buy passing the system in order to sell their goods cheaper does not mean that it should not be tried.

International cooperation is a good thing and it would be deepened with the inclusion of carbon costs in the retail price. There would most likely be an organisation created specifically to set how much extra should be paid for each product at each stage of the process. Cooperation would be needed to set prices and to make sure that everyone actually paid for the carbon produced. An organisation would be even more necessary to ensure that the money gained from the higher price goes on reducing CO2 emissions rather than simply on making more emissions. Essentially there is some need for international policing as well.

Children are already told early on to care for the environment. messages like : do not litter, keep defense/Karachi clean keep defense/Karachi green etc are spangled everywhere.

Children are not buying and riding around in their private jets or carbon friendly vehicles or eating processed meat; at least not of their own accord. It's the grownups that really need to be told not children.

When children are told(at home and through the media) that it's okay/civilised/col/kewl/elitist/a-privilege to ride around in a big fancy polluting car rather than a hybrid and to travel in a private jet or airplane/aeroplane rather than by train then it does not matter what they are taught in schools/temples.

The vital way of engaging the entire globe towards the fight against the Climate change is through genuinely involving the international community not only in rhetoric but in substantial mitigation and adaptation measures.Each and every person is to consider own contribution towards the same.

As the developing Nations strive to put their points across to the developed nations about their need to bear the costs, strategically learning institutions are starting points of awareness raising on Climate change. The learners should then be set for Objectives in the learning syllabi about the Climate change issue . 'TEACH A CHILD A GOOD THING AND HE WILL NOT DEPART FROM IT ....'

On school related materials , there should be the message of ' CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL,MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.' Messages to the churches/temples/mosques/synagogues etc should bear similar content.

Debates > Carbon costs should be included in the retail price of products and services