Cart Tax Credit
June 15th, 2008
Question: To the one who asked about using punishment as a pollution control…?
I spent ten minutes writing the answer, so here it is:
You mean negative reinforcement for negative externalities? I think in theory it’s effective so long as:
1) It’s reasonable (cutting CO2 emissions to zero is not, for instance)
2) It’s well-communicated (so polluters know what’s expected)
3) It has well-established causal mechanisms (punishing an auto maker for a lack of biodiversity in Canada is counter-effective; there’s nothing they can do directly)
4) There is no way around it (ie, you don’t create an incentive to simply “hide” the pollution by building a bigger smokestack to send the chemicals farther away or cart the toxic waste to another location)
5) It works best with a positive reinforcement, ie tax breaks or a pollution credit system where those most efficient companies can sell excess “right” to pollution on an open market.
Please post your thoughts and get two points. Ten points to the best case for or against my five points.
Answer: 1) I agree with this.
2) Polluters all ready know… they just don’t care about Earth.
3) Er… I speak English pretty good for a country that doesn’t have main language English, but I really don’t understand.
4) Yep, there is no way around… only total stopping… and it will stop in a way or another: either people realized pollution is in fact their undoing, either Earth runs out of polluting resources (such as petrol and coal).
5)Again, I didn’t understand exactly. If you really want to, email me 3 and 5 more clearly and I’ll try to help.
Hope it meant something for you.Now that everything has been clarified, I can answer everything on subject:
3) Pollution regulation should depend on bio-diversity. Especially if there’s a national park or an endangered specie around the polluter. Most of all, we should regulated pollution according to human concentration (people per square mile).
4) There certainly shouldn’t be any way around it. Only if people find a good way to use polluting chemicals. There is one nowadays. By burning everyday rubbish that rotted, you can obtain bio-gas (I don’t know if it’s the actual name for it in English), which could replace natural gases in the future.
5) Rewarding to decreasing of pollution? I don’t know if it’s quite a good idea. People might pollute behind your back and stop the pollution they made themselves. If rewarding would exist, the case should be carefully examined.Hope I helped!
British homeowners continue to trim mortgage debt
British homeowners cut mortgage debt by £4.9bn in the third quarter of 2009. Photograph: Russell Boyce/Reuters Britons reduced their outstanding mortgage debt by £4.9bn during the third quarter of…
Guide on how to get the free golf cart
Posted in 
Tags: