Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It is a question of proportion. If one compares the cost of a CO2 emission certificate for the industry with the taxes on gas for driving minus a share for street infrastructure, traffic police,... then you still end up with much higher taxation of gas than of coal.

Ok, one could argue that windmill and solar subsidies are 'anti-coal', but I think that big industrial power consumers still can make a deal with a power companies to get electricity essentially at the price as it comes from a coal fired plant, so I wouldn't directly count wind as anti-coal. And nuclear... There were really enough (good) discussions about nuclear in this forum...

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree on one thing: the exemptions to "energy-intensive industries" from the Ökosteuer were a shame; but thank the Genosse der Bosse. This resulted in the nice situation that the German Railways pays the ecology tax for its electricity, while E.ON et al don't pay it for their coal power plants.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is totally ass-backwards.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually !x#&@! Clement, then head of Northrhine-Westphalias state, also had his hand in it. (Just found an old article about him threatening to kill the ecology tax in the Bundesrat, the upper house of the federal parliament that consists of representastives of satate governments.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 06:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series