<p>The recent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canadian carbon tax law is just CO2</a>.   </p>

<p>CO, which you asked about, is bad for people and considered a pollutant.   Efforts to reduce CO have been underway for decades including carbon monoxide detectors in homes and garages and catalytic converters in cars.  The target behind CO is elimination as much as possible.   Being a pollutant, there's a different approach.  The tax is only meant to discourage CO2 production, which isn't a pollutant, but it is a problem due to gradual build up.</p>

<p>Likewise, sulfur pollution, coal being a primary source, is dealt with by strict limits (in the US), and scrubbers which catch sulfur emissions have been installed in coal plants since the 1980s. </p>

<p>Additional greenhouse gas taxes like CH4 might eventually come to pass, but, like CO, the effort with the greehouse gas CH4 should be elimination, not taxation.  It's also harder to put a number on CH4 released, which can be released by fracking seepage or cow burps primarily or by escape from thawing tundra (are we going to tax teh ground?).    CO2 is easier, for example because we know how much CO2 is produced per gallon of gasoline, for example, so a tax is straight forward, but cow burps or fracking seepage could be estimated so a tax there might be possible.      </p>

<p>But the general idea, is that, if it's preventable and a pollutant of some form, then regulation should aspire to reduce output, even strive towards elimination.   CO2 is an inevitable byproduct of burning fossil fuels, so it can't be eliminated and it would be problematic to try, but it can be financially discouraged by taxation.   </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-04T11:08:03.133Z
Fracking could be taxed or even banned, to reduce or prevent Natural gas seepage, polluting the ground water level. "Tap water on fire" may be amusing for a while, but is a total waste of limited National resources !!!
Neel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-04T11:58:57.547Z
@Neel true.   The ideal approach would be to reduce seepage as close to zero as possible rather than tax it, but you're right.   It could be taxed.   CO2 kind of has to be taxed though because it's too hard to prevent it's creation when burning fuel, though coal plants can capture carbon, but it's expensive.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-03T21:06:23.437Z
2019-10-03T21:15:08.050Z
2019-10-03T21:15:08.050Z
userLTK
<p>Will <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Carbon tax</a> be applied to other emissions or only carbon emissions like Carbon dioxide &amp; Carbon monoxide ? Can non-warming pollutant emissions like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chaff</a>(Chemtrail) also be taxed under the Carbon tax ?</p>

<p>For reference, see <a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12902/why-is-carbon-pollution-given-more-importance-than-sulfur-pollution-or-nitrogen">Why is carbon pollution given more importance than Sulfur pollution or Nitrogen pollution ?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-03T13:45:57.337Z
That will be up to the people drafting the laws for carbon taxes or other forms of pollution.
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-03T15:00:40.503Z
Sorry, this question is unfit for this site. It is too broad and answers will be opinion based.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-03T18:37:53.440Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about political and economic measures to reduce carbon emissions, not earth science. Also, chemtrails aren't real ;-)
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-04T09:31:44.297Z
Currently, in The Netherlands, people are [talking about introducing nitrogen emission rights](https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/oplossing-stikstofprobleem-ammoniak-van-veehouders-is-miljoenen-waard~b87f4883/) ('tax'). Whether that'll make it....
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-04T09:34:29.403Z
*Chaff* is not *chemtrails*, not to mention that these so called 'chemtrails' are 99.99% water
Jan Doggen
<climate-change><co2><pollution>
Will carbon tax be applicable to other emissions?
Neel
# Will carbon tax be applicable to other emissions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-10-03)

Will [Carbon tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax) be applied to other emissions or only carbon emissions like Carbon dioxide & Carbon monoxide ? Can non-warming pollutant emissions like [Chaff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure))(Chemtrail) also be taxed under the Carbon tax ?

For reference, see [Why is carbon pollution given more importance than Sulfur pollution or Nitrogen pollution ?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12902/why-is-carbon-pollution-given-more-importance-than-sulfur-pollution-or-nitrogen)

**Tags:** climate-change, co2, pollution

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That will be up to the people drafting the laws for carbon taxes or other forms of pollution.  
> **username_2**: Sorry, this question is unfit for this site. It is too broad and answers will be opinion based.  
> **username_3**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about political and economic measures to reduce carbon emissions, not earth science. Also, chemtrails aren't real ;-)  
> **username_2**: Currently, in The Netherlands, people are [talking about introducing nitrogen emission rights](https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/oplossing-stikstofprobleem-ammoniak-van-veehouders-is-miljoenen-waard~b87f4883/) ('tax'). Whether that'll make it....  
> **username_2**: *Chaff* is not *chemtrails*, not to mention that these so called 'chemtrails' are 99.99% water  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-10-03. Score: 2

The recent [Canadian carbon tax law is just CO2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada).

CO, which you asked about, is bad for people and considered a pollutant. Efforts to reduce CO have been underway for decades including carbon monoxide detectors in homes and garages and catalytic converters in cars. The target behind CO is elimination as much as possible. Being a pollutant, there's a different approach. The tax is only meant to discourage CO2 production, which isn't a pollutant, but it is a problem due to gradual build up.

Likewise, sulfur pollution, coal being a primary source, is dealt with by strict limits (in the US), and scrubbers which catch sulfur emissions have been installed in coal plants since the 1980s.

Additional greenhouse gas taxes like CH4 might eventually come to pass, but, like CO, the effort with the greehouse gas CH4 should be elimination, not taxation. It's also harder to put a number on CH4 released, which can be released by fracking seepage or cow burps primarily or by escape from thawing tundra (are we going to tax teh ground?). CO2 is easier, for example because we know how much CO2 is produced per gallon of gasoline, for example, so a tax is straight forward, but cow burps or fracking seepage could be estimated so a tax there might be possible.

But the general idea, is that, if it's preventable and a pollutant of some form, then regulation should aspire to reduce output, even strive towards elimination. CO2 is an inevitable byproduct of burning fossil fuels, so it can't be eliminated and it would be problematic to try, but it can be financially discouraged by taxation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Fracking could be taxed or even banned, to reduce or prevent Natural gas seepage, polluting the ground water level. "Tap water on fire" may be amusing for a while, but is a total waste of limited National resources !!!  
> **username_4**: @username_0 true.   The ideal approach would be to reduce seepage as close to zero as possible rather than tax it, but you're right.   It could be taxed.   CO2 kind of has to be taxed though because it's too hard to prevent it's creation when burning fuel, though coal plants can capture carbon, but it's expensive.  

---

