-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
The only solution to this is new technologies. If we can come up with new technologies that the third world can adopt, then they can be clean and develop at the same time. And that, I would argue, is the biggest flaw in your plan. There actually is a disincentive to produce new techonologies, because of the tax that will burden them; any new technology is going to have significant pollutants in production, and so your tax actually would inhibit new technologies.
Not at all. The tax is on pollution, not technology that prevents pollution. In fact, a pollution tax makes polluting expensive, so any gadget that can reduce pollution will save people money, and people will demand said pollution-preventing gadget.
Developing new technology does not involve much pollution. Making a few prototypes is nothing like gearing up for full-scale production of the finished product.
The only inhibition would be a generalized increase in the cost of many items. But the increased incentive of higher fuel prices would easily overcome the generally slightly increased cost of doing business.
In any case, there is already plenty of technology to prevent pollution, save energy, and save money. It has not been fully used because energy does not cost enough for people to really care. US auto plants are already tooling up to make economically viable and marketable electric cars. Windmills already have ROI’s that rival many other investments. There are zillions of means of limiting pollution that have been developed, many of which are used because it is just a little bit cheaper to simply dump the pollution on one’s neighbors that stop it or clean it at the source. With a pollution tax, these pollution limiting devices will finally make financial sense and will be used.
