7 ms·
I think maybe we seem to be disagreeing because I see it as a feature that > If the taxes are levied indirectly then there is very little incentive for any par
by aeorgnoieang 11y ago
I think maybe we seem to be disagreeing because I see it as a feature that
> If the taxes are levied indirectly then there is very little incentive for any parties to change their behavior.
I don't care about any particular behavior per se [in the context of this discussion!]. If the costs of cleaning up people throwing plastic away are being met by a tax, why would one care whether plastic continues to be used for new items and people continue to throw it away?
It's possible that the most efficient behavior – in terms of physics – is to make things out of certain materials and then throw them away after some point. It's not obvious that reuse or recycling are always more efficient than simply 'wasting-and-remaking', given all of the other elements of our environments (like bacteria, fungi, ambient energy, etc.).
- c22 11y ago> If the costs of cleaning up people throwing plastic away are being met by a tax, why would one care whether plastic continues to be used for new items and people continue to throw it away? Because it's possible that the costs are not entirely monetary. I agree that there is more nuance to this debate, though. In my opinion one-time use objects made of plastic are appropriate in some contexts (medical care, for instance) and less appropriate in others (plastic silverware).