Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Play Stock Market Games
Fantasy Stock Picking Contest

Investments > Investing Science > Re: taxing dest...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 5 Topic 14950 of 17599
Post > Topic >>

Re: taxing destruction of nature

by Lysander <lysander@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 7, 2008 at 08:37 PM

On Mar 6, 12:38 am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I figure it is kind of obvious but I say it anyway: a person that
> pollutes nature should be taxed the amount it costs to take that
> pollution out again of nature. the immediate costs and all projected
> long-term costs, to be determined by some national science consensus.

By national consensus. Huey. National consensus would have no idea of
what the cost are.


> Trading pollution rights what they are now setting up is a
> bad idea.

It is actually a great idea. Taxing pollution means that people who
have a high cost of cleaning up are affected just as equally as people
who can clean up easily. Tradeable permits yields similar amounts of
low pollution but at lower cost. Those who can clean up cheaply do not
want the permits and sell to those with a high cost of reducing
pollution. Society gets the same amount of lower pollution but at less
cost.


> An entity making great profits from polluting can
> buy a lot of pollution rights leaving other companies starved of
> op****tunity,

It is not about who makes the most profits from pollution. It is about
the cost to clean up. If steel mills cost $1 million to comply to no
pollution and it cost me $10 then if I get a permit I sell it to the
steel mill for something under $1 million. Pollution is reduced at the
cost of $10. If we tax or require all to have the same emissions we
get similar emissions but at higher cost. It is those firms who will
have the highest cost of avoiding pollution that will want the permit.
Those who can clean up cheaper than they get a permit will not want
the permit.

>it seems vulnerable to corruption, even worse when done
> internationally.

Much less vulnerable to corruption than regulation or taxation.


> This way crops sprayed with pesticides cost more, a simple soil sample
> can indicate how much a farmer will be taxed, better then delving
> in heaps of faked or not paper about bought or not bought pollution
> rights.

This still has to happen with permits or taxes. You buy the right to
pollute X amount. You get fined if you pollute more. Either way
governments have to check to see how much someone is polluting.
 




 5 Posts in Topic:
taxing destruction of nature
"J.H.Boersema"   2008-03-06 06:38:56 
Re: taxing destruction of nature
Lysander <lysander@[EM  2008-03-07 20:37:22 
Re: taxing destruction of nature
royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-08 19:04:15 
Re: taxing destruction of nature
Lysander <lysander@[EM  2008-03-10 14:56:33 
Re: taxing destruction of nature
"Dan in Philly"  2008-03-08 12:24:22 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sat Nov 22 9:07:11 CST 2008.