4 ms·

There is a huge problem with pricing externalities as taxes because those who are harmed are not compensated, the cost of the externalities should paid to those

There is a huge problem with pricing externalities as taxes because those who are harmed are not compensated, the cost of the externalities should paid to those who are harmed. This requires better understanding of property rights and measurements - if you want to pollute the air then those effected have to sell you the right -- that would be the ideal solution instead of the government taking more money out of the economy for it's uses.

nkingsy 6y ago
Usually this is paired with dividends paid equally to everyone. As you said we don’t have the sophistication to apply reimbursement fairly to those affected.
jolux 6y ago
The system you describe is the government. The government would tax it and then redistribute the revenue to the communities of those affected, if that’s what we decided was most important. The state is the mechanism through which groups of individuals take action in public.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > The government would tax it and then redistribute the revenue to the communities of those affected, if that’s what we decided was most important. That's also problematic because CO2 acts globally - and you don't really want to give dictatorships of poor countries who are affected the most (e.g. Africa) a steady supply of money.
  - jolux 6y ago
    I was talking purely about domestic policy, just to clarify. In the US people in the southeast are most immediately affected by global warming, in the form of severe storms (incidentally states in the southeast are also already among the greatest recipients of federal aid, because of their high levels of poverty). On an international level there will need to be economic cooperation as well but it will look different because there isn’t a single sovereign to collect and distribute revenue. Typically such solutions focus on agreements to reduce tariffs in international trade provided certain conditions and such.

nkingsy 6y ago

Usually this is paired with dividends paid equally to everyone. As you said we don’t have the sophistication to apply reimbursement fairly to those affected.

jolux 6y ago

The system you describe is the government. The government would tax it and then redistribute the revenue to the communities of those affected, if that’s what we decided was most important. The state is the mechanism through which groups of individuals take action in public.

mschuster91 6y ago
> The government would tax it and then redistribute the revenue to the communities of those affected, if that’s what we decided was most important. That's also problematic because CO2 acts globally - and you don't really want to give dictatorships of poor countries who are affected the most (e.g. Africa) a steady supply of money.
- jolux 6y ago
  I was talking purely about domestic policy, just to clarify. In the US people in the southeast are most immediately affected by global warming, in the form of severe storms (incidentally states in the southeast are also already among the greatest recipients of federal aid, because of their high levels of poverty). On an international level there will need to be economic cooperation as well but it will look different because there isn’t a single sovereign to collect and distribute revenue. Typically such solutions focus on agreements to reduce tariffs in international trade provided certain conditions and such.