3 ms·

There definitely is a way to deal with this in economics: taxes. If you tax the companies making the plastics, the price will go up, and they have an incentive

by orev 6y ago

There definitely is a way to deal with this in economics: taxes. If you tax the companies making the plastics, the price will go up, and they have an incentive to do things differently. Taxes are a crucial pillar of even a purely capitalist society, it’s just that they are not easy to implement politically.

hntrader 6y ago
Pigovian taxes are my favourite response to environmental damage. In theory, everyone should be on board. The fiscal conservatives should want it, since negative externalities are a violation of the non-aggression principle, and taxes are the least intrusive way to encourage change, it's basically delegating the specifics of the change to the market. It is consistent with their principles to want it. It seems like the easiest way to potentially get the most people on board. I also genuinely believe it's the best solution most of the time. The market is ingenious as long as prices accurately reflect costs and benefits.
specialist 6y ago
I read u/AtlasBarfed's point being that we don't have a proper way to put a price on the externalities. To your point, onerously high taxes could largely remove plastics from the waste stream, mooting the need to determine the cost. I'd like to go even further. Incentives and prizes and grants and whatever-it-takes to find alternatives. eg Bulk pills in plant-based baggies, instead of monthly oversized labeled bottles and caps. Nudge the culture and expectations. Every little bit would help. Because better is better.
- sep_field 6y ago
  The onerously high taxes could help pay for the incentives, prizes, and grants.
alistairSH 6y ago
LOL @ the downvotes. Not sure why, what orev said is true - taxing externalities is generally considered (at least by economists) the best way to manage the externality. Set the tax at a level that makes it cost prohibitive to use plastics and the market will find an alternative.

by orev 6y ago

hntrader 6y ago

Pigovian taxes are my favourite response to environmental damage. In theory, everyone should be on board. The fiscal conservatives should want it, since negative externalities are a violation of the non-aggression principle, and taxes are the least intrusive way to encourage change, it's basically delegating the specifics of the change to the market. It is consistent with their principles to want it. It seems like the easiest way to potentially get the most people on board. I also genuinely believe it's the best solution most of the time. The market is ingenious as long as prices accurately reflect costs and benefits.

specialist 6y ago

I read u/AtlasBarfed's point being that we don't have a proper way to put a price on the externalities. To your point, onerously high taxes could largely remove plastics from the waste stream, mooting the need to determine the cost. I'd like to go even further. Incentives and prizes and grants and whatever-it-takes to find alternatives. eg Bulk pills in plant-based baggies, instead of monthly oversized labeled bottles and caps. Nudge the culture and expectations. Every little bit would help. Because better is better.

sep_field 6y ago
The onerously high taxes could help pay for the incentives, prizes, and grants.

alistairSH 6y ago

LOL @ the downvotes. Not sure why, what orev said is true - taxing externalities is generally considered (at least by economists) the best way to manage the externality. Set the tax at a level that makes it cost prohibitive to use plastics and the market will find an alternative.