Quesiton regarding Ron's view on Environmentalism.

[Lord Xar]

I assume Ron believes in Market Environmentalism -- and as such, someone posed this question to me -

"Market environmentalism would require us to put a user fee on gasoline at the pump, which would cover all the externalities (health costs, cost of road construction, etc.). Are you in favor of this?"

I did not understand the question as it pertains to market environmentalism. Is this belief a byproduct of an offshoot of this idealogy of dealing with environmental issues, as the readings I have done do not suggest this. slightly confused.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well one thing I've heard regarding Nuclear Power for instance is somebody has to being willing to cover the potential liabilities related to radiation especially if something like Japan's accidents happens here. The government crafted together a weird Indemnification or Liability Cap to ease concerns of private investors starting up Nuke Plants.

Up to a certain point Private Nuclear Plants have their own insurance, but I think under something called the Price-Anderson Act if the liability exceeds their insurance the Federal Government may bail them out. So the tax payers devastated by a nuclear fallout basically also get stuck with the bill to clean it up.

I think under normal market forces private investors would be scared shitless to start a Nuclear Plant and someday face liability for something like 3 Mile Island or even worse, but once again those normal market forces have been subverted by the Federal Government.

 

[Lord Xar]

ok, but how does that tie into the question:

"Market environmentalism would require us to put a user fee on gasoline at the pump, which would cover all the externalities (health costs, cost of road construction, etc.). Are you in favor of this?"

Are you saying that because of "potential" outcomes, there must be a safety net? And how does that tie into "road construction". I am sorry for the base inquiries - but a marxist asked me this question so I am trying to understand the question as it pertains to market environmentalism, and what "road construction" has to do with it. I understand the "health" part now, as you suggest - a nuclear power plant or perhaps some emissions from cars causing cancer, how does the private person "protect themselves"..

But would market environmentalism require "taxes" on things to pay for the potentiality of issues?

 

[angelatc]

I assume Ron believes in Market Environmentalism -- and as such, someone posed this question to me -

"Market environmentalism would require us to put a user fee on gasoline at the pump, which would cover all the externalities (health costs, cost of road construction, etc.). Are you in favor of this?"

I did not understand the question as it pertains to market environmentalism. Is this belief a byproduct of an offshoot of this idealogy of dealing with environmental issues, as the readings I have done do not suggest this. slightly confused.

I think it's a flawed premise. The costs of all these externalities are naturally built in by the market. It's called "the price."

If the government decides that the sellers of gasoline need to pay for road construction, then said seller will raise his price to cover his contribution. (Which begs the question, "Why aren't the electric cars paying their fair share?")

If the court decide to charge us for bad health, said owner will buy insurance and again raise his price accordingly.

Attempting to assign externalities is where we screw up the process.

 

[Teaser Rate]

I think it's a flawed premise. The costs of all these externalities are naturally built in by the market. It's called "the price."

An externality, by definition is a market condition in which economic actors cannot not fully absorb the costs or benefits of their actions.

Pollution is the simplest example, if I build a plant and pollute the air around me, I'm imposing a cost on others which I do not have to compensate for unless someone forces me to do so.

 

[South Park Fan]

An externality, by definition is a market condition in which economic actors cannot not fully absorb the costs or benefits of their actions.

Pollution is the simplest example, if I build a plant and pollute the air around me, I'm imposing a cost on others which I do not have to compensate for unless someone forces me to do so.

That's what a proper court system is for. There's no need for taxes to settle a liability.

 

[angelatc]

An externality, by definition is a market condition in which economic actors cannot not fully absorb the costs or benefits of their actions.

Pollution is the simplest example, if I build a plant and pollute the air around me, I'm imposing a cost on others which I do not have to compensate for unless someone forces me to do so.

3



Bah - Keynesian economics. If you're polluting and it causes damages to somebody else'e property, then you get sued. If the government does it's job, then you'll be held liable.

 

[hugolp]

He is just playing with you:

Market environmentalism would require us to put a user fee on gasoline at the pump, which would cover all the externalities (health costs, cost of road construction, etc.).

This is false. Market environmentalism does not require to put a user fee on gasoline.

 

[angelatc]

That's what a proper court system is for. There's no need for taxes to settle a liability.

Especially when one is no protection fro the other. Case in point - a recent court decision said that automobile manufacturers can be held liable for *not* installing airbags even before air bags were required. (OK - it's a regulation, not a tax, but the general premise is the same.)

 

[Teaser Rate]

That's what a proper court system is for. There's no need for taxes to settle a liability.

I don't see how a court system would be more effective than properly enforced environmental standards.

Rather than waiting until you get sick from pollution and then spending thousands of dollars to go to court trying to prove that your illness was caused by a specific polluter, wouldn't it be easier to have the government enforce a universal standard to keep the air clean?

 

[drednot]

I assume Ron believes in Market Environmentalism -- and as such, someone posed this question to me -

"Market environmentalism would require us to put a user fee on gasoline at the pump, which would cover all the externalities (health costs, cost of road construction, etc.). Are you in favor of this?"
....

I'm confident Ron's position in his role as a federal servent would be that such choices (as well as highway funding) should be left to states and municipalities, and that states would have the right to sue other states in Federal Court if necessary.

That said, on the philosophical front, how roads are funded must depend on who's building and maintaining them. If the roads are privately owned, then they should be funded by tolls (a solution that is increasingly effective thanks to scanning tech). If the roads are government run, then the government needs to fund them, and if/where tolls are not feasible, a local gas tax is the fairest alternative.

The health costs of burning one gallon of gasoline are tiny (and local) compared to the cost of that gallon. A penny per gallon local tax in smoggy cities would not be unreasonable. I suppose some market environmentalists might argue it's not worth the violation of principle to collect that penny, and in the end, this issue is small potatoes as hardly any driving would be curtailed by drivers funding their health externalities.