5 ms·
Tierney's original 1996 article had a huge impact on me when it came out, and I still get in arguments with my wife today when I don't recycle. It seems obviou
by dankohn1 11y ago
Tierney's original 1996 article had a huge impact on me when it came out, and I still get in arguments with my wife today when I don't recycle.
It seems obvious to me that the right answer to waste is to apply a Pigovian tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax , which is what Tierney is suggesting with the $15 tax per ton of landfill waste. Then, materials that can be profitably separated (currently, paper, aluminum, and cardboard) would be exempted from the fee if you separate them.
The great problem I have with current recycling is that it is not based on any realistic theory of monetizing externalities.
- specialist 11y agoPigovian tax? Tierney writes: It would be much simpler and more effective to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax on garbage, as Thomas C. Kinnaman has proposed I already pay to have someone haul away my garbage, yard waste, recycling. How is what you, Tierney, and Kinnaman propose different? [Kinnaman's paper is paywalled.]
- dankohn1 11y agoIn New York City, it is against the law not to recycle. Paying for garbage removal (via taxes, or preferably, a per bag fee), but not for (realistically) recyclable trash removal, would be a good start.