The free market has no responsibility to public welfare, it's only concern is profit. So without regulation, the public is susceptible to any number of cost-cutting measures that corporations deem fit regardless of their impact on the environment. Toxic waste in rivers, factories emitting greenhouse gases at alarming rates, fertilizers mixing with fresh water etc... Without regulation, we'll keep eating away at our life-support systems until nothing is left
First of all, regulation is not a one-note factor that can be defined in any single way. If the current regulations aren't working and are harmful then there are always different, better regulations that can be innovated, devised and implemented.
Secondly, when it comes to regulation the worst case scenario are financial and economic damages. That perhaps certain regulations may hamper the productivity of business or impede corporate activity in the Americas. In my opinion when we evaluate the alternative, which is a hostile uninhabitable dystopian wasteland where survival is a struggle and everyday is a Hunger Games competition for drinkable water, I think that risking financial damages is worth it.
And lastly, the only customers who care about the environment when spending money are those with the luxury to do so. There may be some people who shop at Whole Foods, but a vast majority of people go for Walmart or McDonalds. Corporations are going to continue being entirely profit-motivated because it is their nature, and the customers are going to be too late in caring about the environment. Because we as humans don't spring into action until something directly impacts us and becomes a tangible reality.
By the time Global Warming becomes a tangible reality it's too late. So that's the flaw in your Capitalistic free market philosophy IMO
It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.
Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.
Well they would not cut payroll taxes as those go to Medicare Part D and Social Security. I honestly doubt the state would cut taxes to balance out the effects. If we assume a reshuffling in the tax code takes place we would have to gauge the effects of the new tax code on economic growth and compare to the effects of environmental damages. It is definitely an interesting idea. Luckily, Bob Murphy also conducted a study on the exact idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Finding,
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Jan 28th, 2018 at 08:20 PM
Honestly, it doesnt even need to be a tax. The Cap and Trade idea proposed in the 90s is still the best imo. Every operation has a carbon cap and if it falls short of that cap it can trade space to a more carbon heavy operation for financial incentives
Well, the IPCC study in question did not even refer to a carbon tax. They referred to any action in the form of trade caps, taxes, or regulations and performed an analysis of the economic damages.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Of course, there will be a switch to energy, but the question is whether economic compliance costs of a switch are greater then the environmental costs.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
No, because they both can be compared. In economics there is something known as social cost. We can compare the social costs to the economic ones to find cost/benefit.
Just want to tell all you people that believe in man-made global warming..........
(please log in to view the image)
For 30 years or more these so called scientists have been making predictions about global warming and when none of them happen they just move the goal posts. Idiot Al Gore has made a fortune on a MYTH called global warming.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 28th, 2018 12:19 AM
