4 ms·
No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do
by cheerlessbog 8y ago
No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do that is to build it into prices (such as a carbon tax, or upstreaming disposal cost) or by regulation. Building cost into price is actually a very capitalist and arguably libertarian approach as it enables the market to reallocate resources to minimize what would otherwise be an externality.
- ericd 8y agoSo you're not disagreeing with the parent. Yes, a carbon tax would be the way to account for that externality while maintaining individual choice.
- cheerlessbog 8y agoThat part yes, but not this, "Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice ...". That's not a fair characterization.
- ericd 8y agoAh I see, looks like you guys cleared it up/agreed in a sibling post.
- seibelj 8y agoGreat, so we are in agreement. I was confused because: > Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price... You put "the individual" in quotes as if to critique some sort of free-market system based on individuals, and I wanted to emphasize that the system we have can solve those problems.
- cheerlessbog 8y agoAh I see - that wasn't my intent.
- zdragnar 8y agoDisposal already costs; either you pay directly, through taxes if your local municipality organizes it, or your rent if your property owner organizes it. The cost of disposal varies by where it is disposed, not where it is purchased or made. It makes no sense to add an arbitrary cost to a product when the receiver of that money is not the one dealing with the externality in the first place. The same goes for carbon emissions; a properly managed landfill that captures released methane is in fact a method of carbon sequestration. Adding a carbon tax would merely create a new slush fund or dump into an existing one.
- teucris 8y agoExcept that disposal costs are highly distorted - depending on where you are, it’s much cheaper than it should be because of cheap land for landfills, cheap shipping to shift the problem away, etc. Proposals to add cost to disposal are meant to correct for these distortions - to really represent the collective cost to the world. This absolutely should not be done arbitrarily - massive, ongoing research should be done to ensure its correcting for these distortions appropriately. Rinse and repeat for fossil fuels. BTW, a methane-capturing landfill is, at best, carbon neutral, not sequestering.
- ehmish 8y agoDepends what you burying, if it's paper and food waste, it is sequestering. Paper and food contain carbon pulled from the atmosphere, and by preventing it from decomposing by excluding oxygen (e.g most landfills) you get carbon sequestration
- teucris 8y agoThat causes anerobic composting which turns the carbon into methane. This is either recaptured and burned or goes into the atmosphere.
- zdragnar 8y agoOnly small amounts of the carbon are converted to methane... enough that capture is worthwhile, but there is certainly a significant portion remaining below ground.