Sierra Club proposes 'couch potato' tax

The Sierra Club is proposing a tax on video games and televisions with the proceeds going to programs that encourage families to get kids off of the couch and into the mountains.

Call it "No Child Left Inside."

The story is too old to be commented.
GodsHand4664d ago

And lets tax the air we breath.

Rooted_Dust4664d ago

That's called the Carbon tax, and it is already being proposed by the UN to fund anti-Global Warming initiatives.

emaddox844664d ago

I would hardly call carbon tax equivalent to "taxing the air we breathe." A carbon tax on owners of vehicles that emit excessive amounts of CO2 and are not needed for work (ahem, Hummer drivers) would help alleviate global warming and fund programs to help stop it.

ry-guy4663d ago

Global Warming is a natural process that has occured on this planet for millions of years. Don't believe me? Take a geology class. During those millions of years life has existed just fine. Don't believe me? Take a palentology class. Life will actually prosper and flurish under a warmer climate versus a colder one. How much natural gas/electricity have you had to use so far in this very tame winter? That just shows it can actually benefit your pocket book. Does it sound crazy? Have you written me off yet? Well how much more legitmate does it sound claiming that the world is going to end, burn, and drown with global warming? It sounds like crazy talk to me. *shrug* Go do some real research on the subject and you'll quickly find out that the scientific community is still out on this one. No one has any concrete answers. That is the bottom line.

emaddox844663d ago

Well, I'm not gonna sit here and argue the source of global warming. Whether its natural or man produced, better safe than sorry right? And regardless of this, people that drive gas guzzling cars like Hummers or big trucks as their daily driver (instead of actually using them for what they are made for) are contributing to the quick decline of fossil fuels. It's not like there is an unlimited supply of it, but people act like there is. Isn't it bad enough how dependent we are on foreign oil already? I would not be opposed to a tax or restriction on the owners of these vehicles. And to think Americans wonder why a lot of the world thinks we are arrogant and ego centric.

BELIE7ER4662d ago

if i want to put the gas i purchase into a big, safe, powerful vehicle to drive my family in- its nobodys buisness. if i want to buy gas to put into my giant construction vehicle in the back yard because i like to dig holes and then fill the dirt back in again- its still nobodys buisness. and why should i feel bad about making use of fossil fuel when its still not certian that it even makes any impact on the world at all, let alone a negative one?

emaddox844662d ago (Edited 4662d ago )

That's like saying buying a big ass stereo system with your money and playing it on full blast in your yard is nobody else's business. In actuality, it is the business of everyone around you because it affects them too, and the local police would not hesitate to explain this liability to you in the case of a noise complaint.

In the case of gas guzzlers, it is other people's business because fossil fuels are a limited source and wasting them affects not only you, but everyone else in this world in a detrimental way. And have you ever heard of smog? Why do you think there is a law going into affect in 2020 requiring vehicles to have a minimum mpg of 35? So yes, it is everyones business what people like you are doing to waste the limited resources of this planet. Remember, you're children and grand children have to live on this planet too.

BELIE7ER4661d ago

i got a real big backyard and i live in the country. my point is that if i paid for my gas to put it into my backhoe and then dig holes only to fill them up again- guess what? its my buisness what i do with that gas i paid for. no ones talkin about running construction equiptment in the middle of the night and no one is talkin about using that gas to burn down your house. i am just making a statement about freedom. is that your sportbike in the picture? imagine if that bike became illegal to own/ operate tomorow. after all- "that thing can do about 200 mph! why does anyone need something that goes that fast? why sould it even be able to go that fast?! those things and the people who ride them are a danger to everyone!". that would suck wouldnt it? but there are alot of people that would love to have that power over you. after all, they know what is best for you. you dont. or lets say mr. sportbike is still legal for now. sure you get great gas mileage, but you spent all of sunday afternoon just cruising aimlessly around the beautifuly twisty country roads. " why- he wasnt even going anywhere!! he wasted a couple of gallons of precious fossil fuel for no other reason than personal enjoyment!" see, the point is that there really are people who think that way and they really do want to control you. my suv is first, but guess what buddie- your crotch rocket is next. and dont forget, this country and behind us the world, has gotten to where it is in industry because of fossil fuels. when the market is good and ready i do believe it will shift toward other means of power and propulsion. wouldnt you like a 'back to the future hover-board'? ill take 2. but in the meantime lets keep moving foward. there is still alot of dead matter to find and burn. no reason to make it more difficult and expensive. no reason to empower the tyrant nannies amoung us. especially when the science still cant prove we are harming our "fragile" little planet. we will keep moving toward that hover-board. oh- and well let you have one that is OBSCENELY UNNECESSARILY FAST! because reedom is fun.

emaddox844661d ago (Edited 4661d ago )

I think you failed to realize that my stereo analogy was that, an analogy. The only similarity between my analogy, and people driving gas guzzlers was that your "private" actions can adversely affect other people, whether it's an immediate effect or takes time to realize.

Your talking about my "dangerously fast" sport bike is irrelevant because that assumes that I drive dangerously fast and endanger others (hence adversely affecting others) when in actuality I am a safe driver, believe it or not. I do not wish to kill myself on a motorcycle. Now should I be driving at excessive speeds and weaving through traffic, then yes, that would be a cause for concern and, if you hadn't noticed, already IS ILLEGAL. So your argument fails. Not to mention that most vehicles nowadays can do over 120, my bike does 176 limited. And if you are caught going over 100 you should go to jail for reckless driving anyway. And I can't argue for others, but I usually only ride my bike for a purpose, like driving to my friends house, going to work, or picking up a few groceries. I hardly joy ride, I have better things to do with my time. Not to mention, have you ever tried to drive more than 30 minutes at a time on a crotch rocket. No thanks says my back and neck.

You like to talk about freedom, but I don't think you understand what that means. Why do you think private drug use, public drunkenness, indecent exposure, building a bomb/fully automatic weapon in your home, or disturbance of the peace is illegal. By your argument, you should be able to do these things ala freedom. But in reality, you can only argue the right to freedom so long as your actions do not adversely affect other people. And I'm sorry, needlessly wasting fossil fuels does, whereas driving safely on my highly efficient motorcycle doesn't.

BELIE7ER4659d ago

i think you need to read my comment a little more slowly, my friend. when i made comments about the sport bike i QUOTED a typical liberal rant against them. (""""" ; too fast, etc.""""&q uot;) i clearly spoke in defense of your right to have and own a sportbike, and not only that, but to also ride aimlessly for pure enjoyment while your efficient engine sips away fossil fuel. i think i do understand freedom better than you would suppose. i guess i better as i have sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws, rules, and regulations of my state. ill let you figure that out as well. maybe now you can understand that i would not encourage the violation of the very laws i enforce. i will however continue to defend the sportbike the suv and all my wonderful guns, as well as videogames. and oh yeah- the burning of my legally paid for gasoline as i see fit.

ry-guy4658d ago

Ooooo I had no idea we were still debating this over here.

Better safe than sorry? Yeah right. The "safe" options that are proposed are communistic in nature. The popular proposal is that we find the "average" salary of every person because allegedly there is a linear relationship between income and CO2 you put out. After finding that average those above it need to cut their CO2 use, or in reality cut their salaries to fall below the average. Those below the average have room to "grow". But it'll never happen.

You can't be safe if you don't know the real ramifications and causations of this warming. Cripes. MARS is warming and ITS polar ice caps are SHRINKING. I don't see Martians up there driving around in their big SUVs.

Yes, fossil fuels are a limited product. However, there is still an ambundance of petroleum and coal on the planet. Well more than what is detailed in "reserves". Did you know reserves only takes into account ecconomically fesable basins? Those tar sands that Canada just figured out a few years ago how to extract the oil from was not, previously, considered economically feasable so it was never added to the world's oil reserves. Antarctica and the Arctic Circle are not taken into consideration because they are covered in ice and cannot be piped properly. Thanks to warming we'll have access to the Artice Cirlce, possibly.

There is much more oil, coal, and natural gas on this planet than is lead to believe.

Don't believe me? Take a petroleum geology class.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 4658d ago
LJWooly4664d ago

While this is actually a good idea, in that it would benefit the health of the taxees, I really doubt Sierra club give a crap about our health; they're just looking to make money out of lazy people. Sad...

Skerj4664d ago (Edited 4664d ago )

LMAO I wasn't the parent who let their kids get 250lbs at 12, why should I have to pay to get them out of the house? I only support things like this if they allow me to sleep with all the hot moms, if not then I'm not paying for their kids.

Ashta4664d ago

And the absolute irony of the gaming and political world finally rears its ugly head once again.

Seriously, the majority of gamers are predominantly democrat (from what I can tell since they all hate on Bush and the Republicans so darn much) and they continuously support lawmakers and groups that try and make laws that would place limits and grueling legislation on gaming and the gaming community.

Yet, when said legislation starts to get passed the same gamers that elect these officials complain when they realize that their freedoms and liberties are being stepped on.

Irony my friends.

By the way, The Sierra Club is a predominantly democrat group which has had its hands in trying to shift the world to the greenpeace age and has proposed tax packages (which means raising taxes) to lawmakers.

It's a special interest group that really has no real interest in anything except smashing down capitalist businesses for "the sake of the planet"


Exhaust4664d ago (Edited 4664d ago )

Who DOESN'T hate Bush? So the 71% or more Americans that don't like Bush are all gamers? Seriously thats a stupid assumption.

Second the Sierra club is all about the environment which we all know Republicans could give a sh!t less about. Rape mother Earth all you want because Jesus will come back and save us... While I totally disagree with this proposal its entirely biased and short sighted to blame it on the democrats. All blame should be with the douche at the Sierra club that came up with this nanny tax.

Lastly the part of gamers supporting democrats which in turn push anti-gaming legislation... Pretty much all politicians take a pro-censorship stand against gaming because they are old and want to scapegoat a new media format they don't understand. Name a republication other than maybe Ron Paul that isn't pushing "family valves" which in turn means games are the devil. How biased do you have to be to think only democrat politicians are anti-gaming?

Come on! You sound like a Faux News anchor. You're a "conservative" that wants to blame everything on the democrats. You should wake up. Try not to be so blindly biased.

BELIE7ER4664d ago (Edited 4664d ago )

completely correct. when you get down to it liberals will always be the threat to freedom. here we have another snobbish elitist group who knows what is better for you than you do. they know it so strongly that the empowerment of bigger government is thier weapon. it remains an irony that the stereotype of a conservative is one of a prude, when liberal after liberal is not only willing to step up and take control of you, but boost the power of the government in the attempt. its not about democrat versus republican, it is about liberalism versus conservativism. more freedom versus less freedom. the democrats and so-called republican groups who seek to take our freedoms need to be reminded that it is the GOVERNMENT who shall fear US. try to kick in my door and find out.

i Shank u4664d ago

shove your legislation up your ass, and everyone continues to use their own discretion! this way, its still called LIFE and not Sierra Club land-of-the-douche!

Show all comments (25)
The story is too old to be commented.