3 ms·
> If the government's goal is to reduce water usage, then all they have to do is increase the tax. A better way, that most governments in fact use, is to set
by tuatoru 6y ago
> If the government's goal is to reduce water usage, then all they have to do is increase the tax.
A better way, that most governments in fact use, is to set performance standards that manufacturers of water-using appliances must meet, and progressively tighten those standards. Low-flow shower heads, aerating mixer taps, garden irrigation controls, low water use washing machines and dishwashers, and so on.
(And: tighten standards on local authorities/water utility companies also. Between 10% (in rich first-world cities) and 70% (in cities with colonial-era infrastructure) of water is lost due to leaks in pipes or pipe joints.)
If you wanted to go all big brother meters could be adapted to reduce flow rates after a certain daily consumption limit is exceeded.
A second possible alternative to taxation is "cap and trade". Every household gets a yearly allocation. Households wanting to use more buy part of the allocation of those that can use less. (Or grandparents donate them to their children while the grandchildren are at home.) Over time the cap reduces.
Both of those methods have less impact on poor people than simply increasing the price of an essential good.
Edit: all of this is fiddling around the edges when it comes to water, because the big consumer is agriculture. And governments almost without exception subsidize agricultural water consumption in one way or another. If they stopped doing that and imposed performance standards as with domestic usage, then agriculture would use water more efficiently.
But the water thing was just an example. For carbon taxes, the price increase has to be noticeable to the end consumer and explained as being due to carbon content, and reasonable alternatives have to be known to exist. (Which they now are, thanks in the USA mainly to Tesla. In Europe, there is public transport, and better urban design e.g. in Hidalgo's Paris.)
- lotsofpulp 6y agoThose are all more complicated and more corruptible than just taxing the thing you want to reduce consumption of. Helping poorer people is a separate problem, that has a very easy solution. Give them money. Of course, this is politically unpalatable as the costs are very transparent (and requisite increase in taxes for richer people).