3 ms·

More generally, from a public policy perspective, how do we tax product externalities, not merely population health impact of product use, but additionally the

by clcaev 2y ago

More generally, from a public policy perspective, how do we tax product externalities, not merely population health impact of product use, but additionally the environmental impact, inclusive of production and disposal, wherever those costs may be incurred across the globe.

ars 2y ago
That's the easy part. The hard part is agreeing what the externality is in the first place! "My study shows Foobar to cause Baz." "No, your study is wrong, my study shows it doesn't." All the easily agreed upon stuff is already done - what's left is the stuff people argue about.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  The easily agreed upon stuff is done?? Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Coal carries an environmental surcharge? Methane leaks are fined? The really obvious stuff is done?? Where?
  - ars 2y ago
    You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not! I'll give you a tiny example: > Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Gasoline is the entire reason we have an economy, do anything to make it more expensive and you'll unleash an earthquake of inflation and lower productivity. That's like the last thing you want to tax! Note: it's irrelevant if you agree with the argument, (or even if I agree with it) - the issue is that the argument exists.
    - freeone3000 2y ago
      Yes, I believe it is irrefutable that burning fossil fuels is continuing to degrade the environment. We can look at it. Silver did not used to tarnish! (It reacts with atmospheric sulfur released from burning coal.) Look at the AQI in any city — it’s wrecked. Compare highway versus 500 meters away. Burning gasoline and coal are toxic and disruptive to health. But we can’t tax them because then… people would use them less. Yes, that is the point.
      - ars 2y ago
        So basically you just completely skipped what I said and replied to something I didn't say? The topic at hand is not the existence of global warming, the topic at hand is what to do about it. > Yes, that is the point. Try this exercise: Write an argument against taxing it. A good argument. If you can't do it, then you are unable to understand the topic and I don't know how to reply to you.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    How do you calculate the balance of positive an negative externalities? I think this is the sticking point. You could put a price on the negative externality from gasoline carbon. How does that compare to the positive value people get from goods shipped with that gasoline: consumer satisfaction, jobs, ect. If we look at all the externalities, should we be subsidizing it or taxing it? This is the challenge with adjusting for externalities.
    - energy123 2y ago
      The positive value is from goods shipped. It's not from goods shipped with gasoline. That's why you tax the gasoline, and not the shipping. Shipping companies will move to EV trucks or synthetic gasoline or hydrogen or carbon credits or whatever and goods will still be shipped, just without the gasoline. At least in the steady state after the market optimizes.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >The positive value is from goods shipped. It's not from goods shipped with gasoline. When goods & people are shipped with gasoline, it is producing that external value. When I drive to the super market to buy groceries, the grocery store receives 2nd order value (aka externality). The fact that alternative modes of transportation exist does not negate the fact that the positive externality exists. Externalities are not defined using comparative analysis. Lets say you move to EVs or whatever, those too will have externalities. The composition of those externalities may be different than gasoline, as factors are internalized and excluded to the costs paid.
  - stogot 2y ago
    And BP says they will pay to clean up their mess. But then spends the next two decades suing to not pay

by clcaev 2y ago

ars 2y ago

That's the easy part. The hard part is agreeing what the externality is in the first place! "My study shows Foobar to cause Baz." "No, your study is wrong, my study shows it doesn't." All the easily agreed upon stuff is already done - what's left is the stuff people argue about.

freeone3000 2y ago
The easily agreed upon stuff is done?? Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Coal carries an environmental surcharge? Methane leaks are fined? The really obvious stuff is done?? Where?
- ars 2y ago
  You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not! I'll give you a tiny example: > Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Gasoline is the entire reason we have an economy, do anything to make it more expensive and you'll unleash an earthquake of inflation and lower productivity. That's like the last thing you want to tax! Note: it's irrelevant if you agree with the argument, (or even if I agree with it) - the issue is that the argument exists.
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    Yes, I believe it is irrefutable that burning fossil fuels is continuing to degrade the environment. We can look at it. Silver did not used to tarnish! (It reacts with atmospheric sulfur released from burning coal.) Look at the AQI in any city — it’s wrecked. Compare highway versus 500 meters away. Burning gasoline and coal are toxic and disruptive to health. But we can’t tax them because then… people would use them less. Yes, that is the point.
    - ars 2y ago
      So basically you just completely skipped what I said and replied to something I didn't say? The topic at hand is not the existence of global warming, the topic at hand is what to do about it. > Yes, that is the point. Try this exercise: Write an argument against taxing it. A good argument. If you can't do it, then you are unable to understand the topic and I don't know how to reply to you.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  How do you calculate the balance of positive an negative externalities? I think this is the sticking point. You could put a price on the negative externality from gasoline carbon. How does that compare to the positive value people get from goods shipped with that gasoline: consumer satisfaction, jobs, ect. If we look at all the externalities, should we be subsidizing it or taxing it? This is the challenge with adjusting for externalities.
  - energy123 2y ago
    The positive value is from goods shipped. It's not from goods shipped with gasoline. That's why you tax the gasoline, and not the shipping. Shipping companies will move to EV trucks or synthetic gasoline or hydrogen or carbon credits or whatever and goods will still be shipped, just without the gasoline. At least in the steady state after the market optimizes.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >The positive value is from goods shipped. It's not from goods shipped with gasoline. When goods & people are shipped with gasoline, it is producing that external value. When I drive to the super market to buy groceries, the grocery store receives 2nd order value (aka externality). The fact that alternative modes of transportation exist does not negate the fact that the positive externality exists. Externalities are not defined using comparative analysis. Lets say you move to EVs or whatever, those too will have externalities. The composition of those externalities may be different than gasoline, as factors are internalized and excluded to the costs paid.
- stogot 2y ago
  And BP says they will pay to clean up their mess. But then spends the next two decades suing to not pay