|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
If they don't stop you from driving, then they generate income which can be used for R&D / abatement. Take responsibility for our actions, and pay for what we pollute, right? And if developed nations don't lead the effort, then who will?
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ah, the good old wasteful government argument... I would never argue there aren't inefficiencies in government, but that does that mean we should do nothing? |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Cap and trade it is, then. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
if it makes you feel better...send me money and I'll wear a cap!!
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Couple reasons for perceived government inefficiency:
- Nature of the services government provides (Baumol paradox, I think it is called) - Transparency / accountability requirements are typically far greater for governments than the private sector (means more paper work, etc.) - It is easy to pick on them |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
OT: Cars, fuel economy, and such
Tradable credits (as part of a cap and trade approach) are different than a straight carbon tax.
The ultimate goal of CAFE standards is to reduce the externality (emissions) associated with vehicles. A tax can achieve the same goal by putting a price on what cars emit, assuming the tax is high enough to actually reduce overconsumption. Last edited by fa63; 03-19-2017 at 07:49 PM. |
|
|