Teachers and Students > Debates
Reducing carbon emissions - Market or Regulative approach?
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: astarmathsandphysics on June 18, 2010, 06:59:49 pm ---Market is better. If you charge people who pollute, you can use the monewy to reduce pollution. If you ban pollution, lots of people will end up in jail, where they will cost us all money
--- End quote ---
""An additional benefit is that the money raised by the government from taxes on polluting cars can be used to plant trees, which reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (to recompense the CO2 released by the most polluting cars). Eventually, if the government is keen, the level of CO2 will reach an equilibrium. This is a very crucial benefit of the market approach, which is unthinkable in the regulative approach, where the government receives no revenue, causes substantial economic downturn and discourages R&D.""
Whole heartedly agree to the concept that the revenue raised can be used to, infact, reduce pollution! ;D
astarmathsandphysics:
singapore is good example. Tax cars and use that money to invest in public transport. L:ike with the London congestion charge. It now costs £8 to drive into central london.
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: Engraved on June 18, 2010, 07:06:43 pm ---Actually the market based solution consumes both time and mony, now time is sth that we dnt have, at all.
We need a mass greenification, and we need it soon, before low lying countries like Bangladesh simply drown.
--- End quote ---
Yes. But imposing regulations on people and businesses will mean that they oppose the government. And in a country like Bangladesh, the government will never take any step which may cause them to lose votes... Few governments will be prepared to risk this actually.
Furthermore, if a regulation is imposed, the effect on the economy and businesses is almost immediate. Worker strikes and economic recessions could occur..
In addition, no one country can be completely blamed for CO2 emissions. All countries contribute, more or less. A market based "cap and trade" system like that in the Kyoto protocol will help all countries and businesses to participate, with quotas allocated. Whereas, regulations are often on a local basis and not all governments in the world will agree to put strict pollution control regulations on their citizens like Bangladesh and other developing countries.
Furthermore, if a regulation is imposed, like no polluting plastic factories, the existing factories who will update to the latest less polluting technologies (assuming they're able to pay for that, or receives subsidy), will have no further incentive to think or invest in R&D for greener technologies. Whereas in a market based system, if you have a less polluting technology, you'll be charged less. Thus, there is a clear incentive.
Saladin:
--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on June 18, 2010, 07:20:52 pm ---Yes. But imposing regulations on people and businesses will mean that they oppose the government. And in a country like Bangladesh, the government will never take any step which may cause them to lose votes... Few governments will be prepared to risk this actually.
Furthermore, if a regulation is imposed, the effect on the economy and businesses is almost immediate. Worker strikes and economic recessions could occur..
In addition, no one country can be completely blamed for CO2 emissions. All countries contribute, more or less. A market based "cap and trade" system like that in the Kyoto protocol will help all countries and businesses to participate, with quotas allocated. Whereas, regulations are often on a local basis and not all governments in the world will agree to put strict pollution control regulations on their citizens like Bangladesh and other developing countries.
Furthermore, if a regulation is imposed, like no polluting plastic factories, the existing factories who will update to the latest less polluting technologies (assuming they're able to pay for that, or receives subsidy), will have no further incentive to think or invest in R&D for greener technologies. Whereas in a market based system, if you have a less polluting technology, you'll be charged less. Thus, there is a clear incentive.
--- End quote ---
And that is the problem, spot on, we need to take the risk, or else we doom being flooded!
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: astarmathsandphysics on June 18, 2010, 07:17:41 pm ---singapore is good example. Tax cars and use that money to invest in public transport. L:ike with the London congestion charge. It now costs £8 to drive into central london.
--- End quote ---
Yes. With charges like this, people are discouraged to use polluting cars in the congested areas like central London. So, less pollution.
What is more, this reduces traffic jams too for obvious reasons. So, the no. of hours spent in traffic jams becomes much less. This means efficient businesses. In cities like Dhaka and Bangkok, traffic jam is a real problem..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version