5 ms·

There's an important concept to the success of city planning: the alignment of incentives. When transit is faster and cheaper than driving, people don't drive

by dangus 3y ago

There's an important concept to the success of city planning: the alignment of incentives. When transit is faster and cheaper than driving, people don't drive as much. The individualistic personal freedom of the automobile doesn't outweigh those practical aspects of getting around. People generally make pretty logical decisions about what they want to do. I'm definitely in favor of congestion charges in certain areas of NYC. If you're downtown in a car you are taking up some incredibly valuable real estate that could be alternatively dedicated to space for human beings. I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil! Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone. In cities with bag taxes, cashiers don't default to throwing your stuff in a bunch of bags, they ask you what you want first. Without the bag tax, some people who don't even have a strong preference to receive bags will end up with them just because the cashier put their items inside automatically. Then, customers start bringing their own reusable bags, use their existing backpacks and totes that they already own, and/or people will just carry a few items without a bag. The end result that the tax was going for has occurred regardless of how mad the individualists get: thousands of single-use disposable items stay out of landfills. This is the same idea for congestion charges: people in NYC who might default to taking an Uber or taxi to get somewhere that's often the same speed or faster to get to on a subway or bus are going to think twice, because there's the psychological knowledge that their behavior is being punished, even if only by a few dollars or cents.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Libertarians are usually much more in favor of taxes to on externalities rather than outright bans. So I dispute your characterization. I agree with the rest of the post though, I think taxing externalities is the right thing to do. Cars have gotten a gigantic subsidy for far too long. A car is allowed to take up 140 sq ft of land for free in one of the most expensive places on earth.
- dangus 3y ago
  In my experience people who claim they are libertarians are against all forms of government regulation and taxation. But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization of libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no respect for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any way. That ideology is a swirling bag of contradictions and people who claim to be libertarian usually just circle back around to being anti-regulation, pro-laissez faire capitalist, pro-consumption, anti-worker conservatives who don't want to admit that they share a bed with the more ugly side of that ideology.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    > In my experience people who claim they are libertarians are against all forms of government regulation and taxation. > But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization of libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no respect for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any way. Tell me you've never spoken to a libertarian without telling me you've never spoken to a libertarian.
    - dangus 3y ago
      Do libertarians even exist? I'm being serious.
ghaff 3y ago
>Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone. Yep. People have discovered that it's pretty easy to make it a habit to carry a small bag if you live in a city and just keep some bags in the car if you're driving to the store--and it's generally a lot nicer tote than a pile of thin plastic bags. Yeah I forget every now and then if I'm walking in a city, but I still don't need plastic 95% of the time and it's a better experience once you get used to it.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  That nice bag also accounts for >300x more CO2 than the plastic bag it replaced.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Well, that's not the only metric. But, yes, cotton bags in particular are generally considered to have the most impact. (Somewhat ironically my nicest ones come from an environmental organization I belong to.) It probably, in general, falls into the category of performative environmentalism even if it led me to change behavior in a way I personally prefer most of the time. (It doesn't apply immediately around where I live and mostly use recyclable bags out of preference.)
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm not sure cities should be legislating you to behave in a way that you personally prefer. They should be legislating things that are beneficial for the city and aren't preferable to people. Also, cotton bags emit about 7000-10000x as much CO2 as plastic bags, while the re-usable bags made from recycled plastic are in the hundreds - you can actually break even on CO2 with those bags if you are careful with them and make sure they don't break before the ~300th use.
      - beebeepka 3y ago
pclmulqdq 3y ago
> I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil! > Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone. I am a libertarian-minded person who takes issues with these taxes and related plastic bag bans. My gripe is that the alternatives to plastic bags are pretty much universally less green, and both plastic pollution and total CO2 spent on grocery bags go up when a bag tax/ban enters. Flimsy plastic grocery bags get re-used as garbage bags. Paper bags, and god forbid reusable cotton bags, emit much more CO2 per use than single-use plastic bags, even if you re-use your paper bags a few times and re-use your cotton bag 100 times. They make no sense, from an environmental perspective. They are effective at changing behavior, which could be what you mean by "effective," but they do not change behavior in an environmentally positive direction.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  I never thought reducing emissions was the reason for trying to reduce disposable plastic bag usage, though I don't doubt many might believe it does.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    The messaging I saw in NYC when the ban was coming in was all about carbon footprint. Do you think the reason is reducing plastic pollution? Because it went up in Australia after their plastic bag ban, since those plastic bags were replaced by heavier plastic bin liners: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/plastic-bag-ban-you-dont-actually-need-a-plastic-bin-liner-to-put-your-rubbish-out/news-story/629abba62ae7d5174208ca36d43615f2 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/plastic-bag-... I think the "bailey" of plastic bag ban proponents is the sea life that gets stuck in plastic bags, but there is no way they would have gotten a ban passed on the back of the impact to sea life.
    - 3y ago

by dangus 3y ago

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Libertarians are usually much more in favor of taxes to on externalities rather than outright bans. So I dispute your characterization. I agree with the rest of the post though, I think taxing externalities is the right thing to do. Cars have gotten a gigantic subsidy for far too long. A car is allowed to take up 140 sq ft of land for free in one of the most expensive places on earth.

dangus 3y ago
In my experience people who claim they are libertarians are against all forms of government regulation and taxation. But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization of libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no respect for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any way. That ideology is a swirling bag of contradictions and people who claim to be libertarian usually just circle back around to being anti-regulation, pro-laissez faire capitalist, pro-consumption, anti-worker conservatives who don't want to admit that they share a bed with the more ugly side of that ideology.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  > In my experience people who claim they are libertarians are against all forms of government regulation and taxation. > But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization of libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no respect for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any way. Tell me you've never spoken to a libertarian without telling me you've never spoken to a libertarian.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Do libertarians even exist? I'm being serious.

ghaff 3y ago

>Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone. Yep. People have discovered that it's pretty easy to make it a habit to carry a small bag if you live in a city and just keep some bags in the car if you're driving to the store--and it's generally a lot nicer tote than a pile of thin plastic bags. Yeah I forget every now and then if I'm walking in a city, but I still don't need plastic 95% of the time and it's a better experience once you get used to it.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
That nice bag also accounts for >300x more CO2 than the plastic bag it replaced.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Well, that's not the only metric. But, yes, cotton bags in particular are generally considered to have the most impact. (Somewhat ironically my nicest ones come from an environmental organization I belong to.) It probably, in general, falls into the category of performative environmentalism even if it led me to change behavior in a way I personally prefer most of the time. (It doesn't apply immediately around where I live and mostly use recyclable bags out of preference.)
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm not sure cities should be legislating you to behave in a way that you personally prefer. They should be legislating things that are beneficial for the city and aren't preferable to people. Also, cotton bags emit about 7000-10000x as much CO2 as plastic bags, while the re-usable bags made from recycled plastic are in the hundreds - you can actually break even on CO2 with those bags if you are careful with them and make sure they don't break before the ~300th use.
    - beebeepka 3y ago

pclmulqdq 3y ago

> I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil! > Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone. I am a libertarian-minded person who takes issues with these taxes and related plastic bag bans. My gripe is that the alternatives to plastic bags are pretty much universally less green, and both plastic pollution and total CO2 spent on grocery bags go up when a bag tax/ban enters. Flimsy plastic grocery bags get re-used as garbage bags. Paper bags, and god forbid reusable cotton bags, emit much more CO2 per use than single-use plastic bags, even if you re-use your paper bags a few times and re-use your cotton bag 100 times. They make no sense, from an environmental perspective. They are effective at changing behavior, which could be what you mean by "effective," but they do not change behavior in an environmentally positive direction.

wizofaus 3y ago
I never thought reducing emissions was the reason for trying to reduce disposable plastic bag usage, though I don't doubt many might believe it does.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  The messaging I saw in NYC when the ban was coming in was all about carbon footprint. Do you think the reason is reducing plastic pollution? Because it went up in Australia after their plastic bag ban, since those plastic bags were replaced by heavier plastic bin liners: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/plastic-bag-ban-you-dont-actually-need-a-plastic-bin-liner-to-put-your-rubbish-out/news-story/629abba62ae7d5174208ca36d43615f2 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/plastic-bag-... I think the "bailey" of plastic bag ban proponents is the sea life that gets stuck in plastic bags, but there is no way they would have gotten a ban passed on the back of the impact to sea life.
  - 3y ago