So this one was inspired by the discussion about plastic bag bans and incandescent light bulb bans...
Should people be taxed for environmentally unfriendly behavior? Circle one: yes or no
(Just kidding, there's no circling involved) Some things to consider...is taxation (i.e. market forces) more effective than banning something? Who should be taxed? Manufacturers? Consumers? What types of behaviors/purchases/etc should be taxed (if any)?
Go!
The easiest way to make the financial cost of an item reflect its environmental cost would be to enact either a carbon cap and trade system or a carbon tax. This way, the manufacturer pays for the carbon emissions associated with the product, and can pass that cost along to the consumer.
Considering that only now that gas costs $4+/gallon are Americans finally starting to gravitate toward fuel efficient cars, I think it's pretty clear that the only effective way to get most people to consider the environmental impact is to make them pay for it. I don't think it necessarily has to be through a tax, but I definitely think the financial cost of a product has to reflect the true cost, including environmental impact.
Look what some states have done with Cigarettes! Why not do that to products like Bleach or Incandescent Bulbs?
more importantly what should we do with the taxes we collect?
more importantly what should we do with the taxes we collect?
Fund alternative energy and fuels R&D and subsidize the technologies.
My first thought is to avoid banning things, unless simply dangerous products. To ban a product is really forcing a perspective and/or opinion on everyone else. Some sort of carbon tax - as previously mentioned - that the manufacturer of the product pays, but likely passes to the customer, making the said product more expensive, is probably be a reasonable idea. The money should be allocated for a specific purpose - like upgrading old power plants, or funding solar roof incentives...
The "Sin Tax" for cigs and liquor is possibly a good model.
Yes, taxes are effective incentives. They change some behavior, and where they don't change behavior, the money can be used to remediate the harm.
BUT--and this is a big but--flat taxes on products (or anything else) are often regressive. That is, they hurt poor people. Suppose, for instance, that we slapped a tax on everyone who uses cars that get less than 20 miles a gallon (or choose your polluting behavior). Sounds great, until you think about why people have the cars that they have.
Who has old, polluting cars? People who can't afford new, fuel-efficient cars. In many cases, people who are scraping just to make ends meet. Same thing for people who are buying non-organic, factory-raised meat, or pesticide-covered & GMO-based veggies. We need to really, really think about it before we add an extra burden to people who are already on the edge.
Of course, a lot of people aren't in that category, so there taxes are less of a problem. SUV taxes on new purchases...that seems like a good idea. Effective & no moral problem about kicking people when they're down.
