Market environmentalism

[crispy]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

 

[arkirk]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

The reason you are not getting any responses is because there probably is no such thing. In order to properly deal with environmental issues you have to first recognize their primacy in terms of importance. So how can the environment come at so much per pound or on a bargain deal on Friday after five. Nature is just here and we do not have the ability destroy nature. We can develop a relationship with nature that facilitiates it getting rid of us if we are not careful...hardly the type of proposition you want to turn over to somebody like Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

The reason you are not getting any responses is because there probably is no such thing. In order to properly deal with environmental issues you have to first recognize their primacy in terms of importance. So how can the environment come at so much per pound or on a bargain deal on Friday after five. Nature is just here and we do not have the ability destroy nature. We can develop a relationship with nature that facilitiates it getting rid of us if we are not careful...hardly the type of proposition you want to turn over to somebody like Trump.

Because in big picture whether something is done always comes down to economics.

I'm not aware of any actual use of market environmentalism but it certainly could be done--instead of setting acceptable emission levels you simply charge for emissions. It would actually work better than the current system as it would drive innovation rather than simply compliance.

 

[laughing dog]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

Market environmentalism means using market mechanisms to deal with environmental issues. In the case of global warming, it would mean either instituting a charge per emission of a climate changing gas or instituting some form of tradable permits.

 

[bilby]

The idea is that you levy a tax at some point in the supply chain, such that the revenues from the tax are sufficient to pay the cost of remediating the harm done by the activity.

For example, you might apply a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide, such that those who use fossil fuels are either motivated to switch to a carbon neutral technology instead, or if they decide to continue to burn fossil fuel, the taxes collected are sufficient to compensate all persons harmed, and/or to clean up the mess (perhaps by extracting carbon dioxide from the air, so it doesn't add to the greenhouse effect).

The major problems with this approach are:

1) How to determine the full cost of the behaviour you wish to offset - a cost that will vary wildly depending on how you determine harm, and what solution is implemented;
2) How to persuade self-appointed guardians of morality and the environment that it's not pure evil to let people pollute, even if they also pay to clean up the mess;
3) How to ensure that the money collected to offset the cost actually gets used for the purpose - because big pools of cash are very tempting; and
4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Step 4 seems to be the deal-breaker. Forcing the polluters to pay now, rather than leaving the problem for the future, is never going to be a winning move politically.

 

[Metaphor]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

There's no such thing as 'market environmentalism'. There couldn't possibly be.

However, you can use market-like mechanisms, imposed by force by government, to obtain environmental benefits (or reduce environmental harms), such as a carbon tax.

 

[bilby]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

There's no such thing as 'market environmentalism'. There couldn't possibly be.

However, you can use market-like mechanisms, imposed by force by government, to obtain environmental benefits (or reduce environmental harms), such as a carbon tax.

...and that could perfectly reasonably be called 'market environmentalism', so clearly there could very possibly be such a thing.

Of course, as carbon is not a negotiable currency, there is no such thing as a 'carbon tax'. There couldn't possibly be*.







*Unless there was.

 

[Axulus]

The idea is that you levy a tax at some point in the supply chain, such that the revenues from the tax are sufficient to pay the cost of remediating the harm done by the activity.

For example, you might apply a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide, such that those who use fossil fuels are either motivated to switch to a carbon neutral technology instead, or if they decide to continue to burn fossil fuel, the taxes collected are sufficient to compensate all persons harmed, and/or to clean up the mess (perhaps by extracting carbon dioxide from the air, so it doesn't add to the greenhouse effect).

The major problems with this approach are:

1) How to determine the full cost of the behaviour you wish to offset - a cost that will vary wildly depending on how you determine harm, and what solution is implemented;

Come up with something reasonable. The idea is to make it better than the other approach - some sort of mandate to use specific pollution reducing technologies or banning the activity all together.

2) How to persuade self-appointed guardians of morality and the environment that it's not pure evil to let people pollute, even if they also pay to clean up the mess;

Zero pollution is not possible in the real world politically and even if theoretically possible would be so catastrophic as to seriously harm our well being. Therefore, pollution is going to happen and the approach is to determine who gets to pollute and how much, and what are the consequences for those who do.

3) How to ensure that the money collected to offset the cost actually gets used for the purpose - because big pools of cash are very tempting; and

Even if it isn't used for clean-up, the additional cost itself will discourage polluting. Furthermore, how is this any worse than the alternative where money isn't collected but specific pollution reducing technologies are mandated?

4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Hopefully a cleaner environment is something that gets you elected as well. You could also use the money raised as a rebate to offset other taxes or just give a flat dollar check to all your constituents. Election problem solved!

 

[bilby]

Come up with something reasonable. The idea is to make it better than the other approach - some sort of mandate to use specific pollution reducing technologies or banning the activity all together.

2) How to persuade self-appointed guardians of morality and the environment that it's not pure evil to let people pollute, even if they also pay to clean up the mess;

Zero pollution is not possible in the real world politically and even if theoretically possible would be so catastrophic as to seriously harm our well being. Therefore, pollution is going to happen and the approach is to determine who gets to pollute and how much, and what are the consequences for those who do.

I know. But try explaining that to arkirk, or Greenpeace.

3) How to ensure that the money collected to offset the cost actually gets used for the purpose - because big pools of cash are very tempting; and

Even if it isn't used for clean-up, the additional cost itself will discourage polluting. Furthermore, how is this any worse than the alternative where money isn't collected but specific pollution reducing technologies are mandated?

4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Hopefully a cleaner environment is something that gets you elected as well. You could also use the money raised as a rebate to offset other taxes or just give a flat dollar check to all your constituents. Election problem solved!

Hopefully doth butter no parsnips.

I think it is a good idea; But I am certain it isn't one that can be successfully implemented in any currently extant developed nation - largely because people are stupid, and because representative democracy highlights and makes a fetish of certain kinds of stupidity - in particular, short-termism.

Don't imagine that my belief that it is impossible is an indication that I believe it is undesirable.

 

[Metaphor]

...and that could perfectly reasonably be called 'market environmentalism', so clearly there could very possibly be such a thing.

I don't think hardcore rightists would consider the government using force to achieve an outcome a 'market' outcome. Carbon pollution is a sore point with economic libertarians because it is an externality that cannot be managed by market forces without government intervention.

Of course, as carbon is not a negotiable currency, there is no such thing as a 'carbon tax'. There couldn't possibly be*.

*Unless there was.

I'm confused. What's a 'negotiable currency', and why would it be necessary as a tax base? I'm not trying to be facetious.

According to Wikipedia

From the view of economists, a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received.

That seems to me that an amount paid to the government for every tonne of carbon produced to be a tax, unless the 'non-penal' part precludes that characterisation.

 

[bilby]

I don't think hardcore rightists would consider the government using force to achieve an outcome a 'market' outcome. Carbon pollution is a sore point with economic libertarians because it is an externality that cannot be managed by market forces without government intervention.

Of course, as carbon is not a negotiable currency, there is no such thing as a 'carbon tax'. There couldn't possibly be*.

*Unless there was.

I'm confused. What's a 'negotiable currency', and why would it be necessary as a tax base? I'm not trying to be facetious.

According to Wikipedia

From the view of economists, a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received.

That seems to me that an amount paid to the government for every tonne of carbon produced to be a tax, unless the 'non-penal' part precludes that characterisation.

'Market environmentalism' no more needs to be a market solution than 'sodium chloride' needs to be a metal (or a gas).

 

[arkirk]

There's no such thing as 'market environmentalism'. There couldn't possibly be.

However, you can use market-like mechanisms, imposed by force by government, to obtain environmental benefits (or reduce environmental harms), such as a carbon tax.

...and that could perfectly reasonably be called 'market environmentalism', so clearly there could very possibly be such a thing.

Of course, as carbon is not a negotiable currency, there is no such thing as a 'carbon tax'. There couldn't possibly be*.









*Unless there was.

You are simply firming the proposition that your kind of capitalism and environmentalism cannot actually coexist. I saw a person walking his dog with his little pick up bag. Your snazzy car is like that dog...shitting in our environment only you imagine your car's shit is invisible and do not have to account for it. Don't feel bad. There are MILLIONS JUST LIKE YOU. Really markets are about selling things. Taxes are about taking the damages from the proceeds of the damaging party. It really is not a market function....*Unless you think of the universe as one big market and everything happening there is a market thing.

 

[bilby]

...and that could perfectly reasonably be called 'market environmentalism', so clearly there could very possibly be such a thing.

Of course, as carbon is not a negotiable currency, there is no such thing as a 'carbon tax'. There couldn't possibly be*.









*Unless there was.

You are simply firming the proposition that your kind of capitalism and environmentalism cannot actually coexist.

I don't have a 'kind of capitalism'

I saw a person walking his dog with his little pick up bag. Your snazzy car is like that dog...shitting in our environment only you imagine your car's shit is invisible and do not have to account for it.

I don't think my car is particularly snazzy; nor do I imagine that I could collect its waste products even if I wanted to, no matter what kind of bag I used

Don't feel bad. There are MILLIONS JUST LIKE YOU.

If you mean polluters, then there are billions - including you.

Really markets are about selling things. Taxes are about taking the damages from the proceeds of the damaging party. It really is not a market function....*Unless you think of the universe as one big market and everything happening there is a market thing.

I don't. As you would know, if you could contain your self-righteous rage for long enough to read the stuff I write.

You never seem to respond to what people write; which is a shame, because your passion could be helpful if it was rationally directed at the causes of the problems you despise.

Passion without understanding is just zealotry. It helps nobody, and causes more harm than good.

 

[Togo]

The idea is that you levy a tax at some point in the supply chain, such that the revenues from the tax are sufficient to pay the cost of remediating the harm done by the activity.

For example, you might apply a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide, such that those who use fossil fuels are either motivated to switch to a carbon neutral technology instead, or if they decide to continue to burn fossil fuel, the taxes collected are sufficient to compensate all persons harmed, and/or to clean up the mess (perhaps by extracting carbon dioxide from the air, so it doesn't add to the greenhouse effect).

The major problems with this approach are:

1) How to determine the full cost of the behaviour you wish to offset - a cost that will vary wildly depending on how you determine harm, and what solution is implemented;
2) How to persuade self-appointed guardians of morality and the environment that it's not pure evil to let people pollute, even if they also pay to clean up the mess;
3) How to ensure that the money collected to offset the cost actually gets used for the purpose - because big pools of cash are very tempting; and
4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Step 4 seems to be the deal-breaker. Forcing the polluters to pay now, rather than leaving the problem for the future, is never going to be a winning move politically.

Good list. I've been trying to work on a theoretical model for an environmental market for some time, because it seems better than setting pollution targets through individual government mandates. 1) Is tricky, but becomes easier when you work out that you don't have to be entirely accurate, only to reach the accuracy for the current system, 2) Is trivial, the only problem there is persuading the politically self-righteous to cooperate with the enemy, which is a well-established problem with well-established solutions. 4) Is not as hard as it looks, because the taxes are punitive and comparative. You don't need to make the amount of money raised larger than it now, so replacing the current system with a lopsided one that punishes environmental damage doesn't necessarily mean a rise in taxation overall. The biggest problem is 3), because it opens the door to massive personal corruption, much as our present system does.

 

[laughing dog]

The idea is that you levy a tax at some point in the supply chain, such that the revenues from the tax are sufficient to pay the cost of remediating the harm done by the activity.

My understanding of market environmentalism does not require the use of any revenue for remediation. I believe the point of market environmentalism is to use market forces to alter people's behavior to internalize the actual external costs of their actions.

The major problems with this approach are:

1) How to determine the full cost of the behaviour you wish to offset - a cost that will vary wildly depending on how you determine harm, and what solution is implemented;
2) How to persuade self-appointed guardians of morality and the environment that it's not pure evil to let people pollute, even if they also pay to clean up the mess;
3) How to ensure that the money collected to offset the cost actually gets used for the purpose - because big pools of cash are very tempting; and
4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Step 4 seems to be the deal-breaker. Forcing the polluters to pay now, rather than leaving the problem for the future, is never going to be a winning move politically.

Step 1 is important and difficult: quantifying the external costs since most of them are implicit and not readily observed. In some cases, the knowledge is simply lacking.

I think the first step that needs to occur is to get the public (which includes politicians) to understand that difference between cost and expense. When there is an externality like pollution the costs are real. Not dealing with them means people suffer and they lose environmental services. Imposing a tax or a regulation raises the expense to the generators of the externality but not the cost to the public. In fact, if the tax or policy reduces the generation of the externality, the cost of it is reduced. And if it does right, the reduction in harm is more than the increase in expense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Step 4 seems to be the deal-breaker. Forcing the polluters to pay now, rather than leaving the problem for the future, is never going to be a winning move politically.

Actually, this one is simple.

When you put in the pollution tax you cut other taxes by the same amount, make it revenue neutral.

 

[arkirk]

4) How to get re-elected after you just raised prices and/or taxes through the roof on almost everything.

Step 4 seems to be the deal-breaker. Forcing the polluters to pay now, rather than leaving the problem for the future, is never going to be a winning move politically.

Actually, this one is simple.

When you put in the pollution tax you cut other taxes by the same amount, make it revenue neutral.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Taxes should be levied for the things society needs. If you tax carbon you are taxing to pay for the remediation of the problems carbon causes. That does not mean you get to cut taxes for education, medical and other societal needs. The carbon tax HAS NO CHANCE OF BEING REVENUE NEUTRAL WITHOUT ROBBING OTHER PROGRAMS. You talk as if taxation were just some sort of formality and the revenues being sought had no purpose so it can just be run up and down a scale to suit the MARKET.

 

[crispy]

The reason you are not getting any responses is because there probably is no such thing. In order to properly deal with environmental issues you have to first recognize their primacy in terms of importance. So how can the environment come at so much per pound or on a bargain deal on Friday after five. Nature is just here and we do not have the ability destroy nature. We can develop a relationship with nature that facilitiates it getting rid of us if we are not careful...hardly the type of proposition you want to turn over to somebody like Trump.

Because in big picture whether something is done always comes down to economics.

I'm not aware of any actual use of market environmentalism but it certainly could be done--instead of setting acceptable emission levels you simply charge for emissions. It would actually work better than the current system as it would drive innovation rather than simply compliance.

But then I wouldn't call it market environmentalism. Market environmentalism is supposed to be working with people suing polluters for damaging their property, and to facilitate this, everything must be owned by individuals. Everything from the atmosphere to the deepest sea...

But i completely agree, charging for emissions is a great idea, or maybe even simpler, put a tax on each molecule of C you pull out of the ground

 

[dismal]

Ive been trying to get some information about this subject for some time now. I'm not so puzzled about the concept, I can understand it, but I can never seem to find anyone talking about a concrete implementation of it - like how it should handle global warming. Maybe its because it cant really work, unless you define 'work' as obtaining some economic optimum (which I cant even see happening, unless you live in a perfect world).

Anyway, just wanted to raise the topic and hear some thoughts on it.

There's no such thing as 'market environmentalism'. There couldn't possibly be.

However, you can use market-like mechanisms, imposed by force by government, to obtain environmental benefits (or reduce environmental harms), such as a carbon tax.

I once heard a guy from the Nature Conservancy give a speech that went more or less like: "it occurred to us that all the time and money we spent lobbying the government and voters to support conservation could be more easily applied to buying endangered habitats and converting them to nature preserves". I think they attempt to take what would be considered a "market based" approach to environmentalism. But this sort of thing may work if you're trying to save the spotted delta toad, but not so much on global co2.

 

[arkirk]

You are simply firming the proposition that your kind of capitalism and environmentalism cannot actually coexist.

I don't have a 'kind of capitalism'

I saw a person walking his dog with his little pick up bag. Your snazzy car is like that dog...shitting in our environment only you imagine your car's shit is invisible and do not have to account for it.

I don't think my car is particularly snazzy; nor do I imagine that I could collect its waste products even if I wanted to, no matter what kind of bag I used

Don't feel bad. There are MILLIONS JUST LIKE YOU.

If you mean polluters, then there are billions - including you.

Really markets are about selling things. Taxes are about taking the damages from the proceeds of the damaging party. It really is not a market function....*Unless you think of the universe as one big market and everything happening there is a market thing.

I don't. As you would know, if you could contain your self-righteous rage for long enough to read the stuff I write.

You never seem to respond to what people write; which is a shame, because your passion could be helpful if it was rationally directed at the causes of the problems you despise.

Passion without understanding is just zealotry. It helps nobody, and causes more harm than good.

In this thread, I suppose it is your job to show us just how international markets can work in our environment. What I am telling you is that environmental problems will not be dealt with in the markets we have today and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be properly dealth with by a MARKET. The dog walking analogy was an attempt to make it clear that environmental problems are non point source and require aggressive remedies which markets simply cannot offer. The markets we have today are only aggressive in denying their own failure to deliver a decent life to all the people in a given society.
Your interests are far too narrow to deal with our environment and you keep talking about zealotry blind to your own zealotry. When the door to economic well being in slammed in too many faces, the market economy doesn't do society any favors. Such is its nature. That is not a matter of MY PASSION. It is much more a matter of the passions of men like Donald Trump and the Koch Brother, and Goldman Sachs. These people have real effects in the world. They are ridiculous at best, but that does nothing to attenuate their power over our society.