Teachers and Students > Debates

Reducing carbon emissions - Market or Regulative approach?

<< < (6/6)

elemis:

--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on June 18, 2010, 07:03:49 pm ---The Singapore introduced car taxes. Everybody needs to pay taxes, which are often more than the price of the cars they are going to buy. To enter busy areas like Hougang, you've got to pay a flat rate of tax in the peak hour, falling in off peak hours. I've been there and I think this is a very effective system if the country's road network is proper. I don't think this high rate of tax has caused Singapore to suffer any economic decline. In contrast, it has experienced rapid rates of growth. So, this statistic reinforces that a market based approach does not cause the economy to suffer in any way.

Yes. I agree that we need to invest heavily in green technology. And the market based approach does (indirectly) just that as I explained earlier. The regulative approach makes some attempt, but generally fails for reasons explained above.

--- End quote ---

Singapore is a island - on a small scale such things might work.

 Imagine the effect in recession hit countries with massive road systems like America. Imagine the capital needed to impose a toll system on ALL the roads in America.

$tyli$h Executive:
Its not all the roads! Its just the heavily congested areas. The "Polluter pays" principle.

Other ways are to impose taxes on cars and to use a "cap and trade" system for businesses.

Freaked12:

--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on June 18, 2010, 05:58:14 pm ---Yes. There will always be an opportunity cost. It will be more than using polluting petrol and diesel for cars.

But this is mainly due to that scientists are not yet able to develop a model of electric car, which can be produced with substantial economies of manufacture to lower their price. And if this is the case, imagine a case where governments force the citizens to use expensive electric cars by regulation. This is the case where it causes chaos and unemployment...

The market approach does not tell that you are forced to buy an electric car or petrol car or diesel car or whatever. It just says that, there is a price which you must pay for the amount of emission your fuel causes. For example, diesel cars are most polluting. They receive the highest taxes so that people are discouraged to buy diesel cars most. Whereas, hybrid cars and electric cars will receive no or little taxes so that people are encouraged to buy them more than the polluting ones. The margin cannot be accurate, but still, those citizens who are concerned for the environment will be able to pay a higher price for their hybrid or electric cars.

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.

--- End quote ---
bureaucracy
red tape ?
Tax to GDP ratio?
Needs and tastes of the consumers?
Consumers will only act if something happens to their country or else they would give a damn

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page