4 ms·

Everyone needs a pollution tax, hardly anyone wants one

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Mancur Olson's work "The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups" would suggest that lots of people want one, but only a little (they'd gain billions spread over half a billion people) while a few actors who it would financially affect directly really don't want one and the latter wins.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Depends on the type of pollution, I guess? To reduce carbon emissions, one would put a tax on gasoline, natural gas, coal, and electricity from plants powered from those sources. The thing is, that hits every single voter in the pocketbook. And what's more, a voter on $20,000 drives about the same amount as a voter on $200,000 - so if the gas tax costs both drivers $1000 a year, the former will feel it a lot harder. So our politicians are scared to do it.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    They're not scared of the reality as it is incredibly easy to directly offset that back to consumers in a variety of ways who then get to choose whether to spend it on fossil fuels or do something cheaper. They're afraid of the relentless propaganda campaign that will wash that reality away, funded by the concentrated forces that will lose business if forced to account for the damage their products cause. Also, Americans think carbon fees are impossible, yet they're implemented all across the globe, including several US states. It's a political dysfunction that is particularly evident in the US, not a fact of life.
- dv_dt 2y ago
  Its not so much people with little financial interest, but rather interest with more financial power. After all having a life cut short, or being uprooted by climate events or killed is of a huge cost - individually and socially.
mmooss 2y ago
Everyone pays it, but the distribution of costs depends on nature and not on rational policy. It also depends on having the wealth to avoid certain costs, e.g., by leaving dangerous areas.

Mancur Olson's work "The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups" would suggest that lots of people want one, but only a little (they'd gain billions spread over half a billion people) while a few actors who it would financially affect directly really don't want one and the latter wins.

michaelt 2y ago
Depends on the type of pollution, I guess? To reduce carbon emissions, one would put a tax on gasoline, natural gas, coal, and electricity from plants powered from those sources. The thing is, that hits every single voter in the pocketbook. And what's more, a voter on $20,000 drives about the same amount as a voter on $200,000 - so if the gas tax costs both drivers $1000 a year, the former will feel it a lot harder. So our politicians are scared to do it.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  They're not scared of the reality as it is incredibly easy to directly offset that back to consumers in a variety of ways who then get to choose whether to spend it on fossil fuels or do something cheaper. They're afraid of the relentless propaganda campaign that will wash that reality away, funded by the concentrated forces that will lose business if forced to account for the damage their products cause. Also, Americans think carbon fees are impossible, yet they're implemented all across the globe, including several US states. It's a political dysfunction that is particularly evident in the US, not a fact of life.
dv_dt 2y ago
Its not so much people with little financial interest, but rather interest with more financial power. After all having a life cut short, or being uprooted by climate events or killed is of a huge cost - individually and socially.

mmooss 2y ago

Everyone pays it, but the distribution of costs depends on nature and not on rational policy. It also depends on having the wealth to avoid certain costs, e.g., by leaving dangerous areas.