A Surcharge to Help the Environment?

This link caught my eye when I looked at Drudge yesterday.  It's a story out of the Sacramento Bee.  Environmentalists in the People's Republic of California are trying to get restaurants there to tack on a one per cent surcharge at some Sacramento restaurants.  It's not mandatory by means of sales tax hike (yet) and restaurant participation is "voluntary".  The proponents are doing this since it makes them feel good; they have a cause; they can proudly trumpet to their Twitter followers and Facebook friends about what great global citizens they for caring about the environment while not having anyone in Organized Media following them to see if they will eat in these restaurants to pay the fee.

When you think about it, it's somewhat ingenius.  Guilt the restaurants into setting up and collecting the surcharge, the restaurants in turn will guilt the customers into paying this surcharge, and those who pay get to spend the drive home esteeming themselves over the fact that they've "done something" to help the environment.  It's a win-win solution, right?

Well let's think about this some.  One per cent of the tab goes towards the fight against what's now called "climate change" (they don't like using the term "global warming" anymore).  One per cent's not so bad, right?  No, I don't suppose that it is, in and of itself, but then what?

Someone else will then come along and want their one per cent for their cause.  Consider the fight against breast cancer.  That's a very serious fight which I personally would like to see us win some day.  What if we have another one per cent for that?  How do I argue against that?  I would personally prefer writing out a check to a trusted charity as opposed to paying a surcharge, but those advocating a surcharge aren't going to like my way of doing it.  They might say "well not everyone is going to write that check!  We MUST raise awareness of this at the point of sale!  If you guilt them, they WILL pay!"

What about one per cent to fight homelessness?  That's a serious problem in California.  Relief organizations are in need of volunteers and support.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to hit those up who can afford to go out and eat for one per cent to help those who are homeless?  Now here is where you can really guilt the customers.  We can ask them, "is it fair for you and your wife to have this nice meal here while some homeless guy goes to sleep hungry tonight?"

You see where I'm going with this, right?  There are lots of good causes out there.  I'm sure there are enough to where you can have twenty of these one per cent surcharges on eating out.  Would everyone pay an extra twenty per cent?  Just how much money can you guilt someone out of anyway?

Yes, I'm skeptical about some of the charities and causes that are out there.  I'm even more skeptical about "man made global warming", but that's beside the point I am attempting to make.  I have my own local pet charity here in Tucson and I have another local cause that's important to me.  I could publicly beat my drum here about either of them but my own personal feeling is that giving is best done by a sincere motivation to give rather than doing so out of being guilted into giving.

But let's now get to that point I want to make.

Isn't there a better way to fundraise?

I'm convinced that there is more than one better way.  Corporate and political groupthink says there isn't, and that bothers me.