-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
See, we basically agree.
People may not make decisions for the good of the earth, but they will for the good of their pocketbook.
I agree we basically agree. But if we agree that people will make decisions only for the good of their wallet, then we should agree that the price of things has to include the FULL cost of that thing, including the damage to the planet. Then, in pursuing the good of their wallet, they will automatically pursue the good of the planet. Various incentives might work to some extent for companies or tech-savvy rich and middle-class people, but they don’t work very well in the real world of the poor regarding whether or not to turn on the air conditioner or whether or not to drive the smoke belching car across town. A pollution tax, however, very directly influences these decisions, and the amount of influence is calibrated to be exactly what it should be: the cost to the world of the decision that is made. A pollution tax may be simple, but it is not blunt.
Would you agree that a pollution tax, if coupled with a counterbalancing grant, would efficiently achieve the aims of reduced pollution, energy conservation, and a shift to renewable energy without significantly economically adversely affecting the poor?
