Reducing carbon emissions - Market or Regulative approach?

[$tyli$h Executive]

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

""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!

[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]

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.

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]

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.

And that is the problem, spot on, we need to take the risk, or else we doom being flooded!

[$tyli$h Executive]

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.

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..

[$tyli$h Executive]

And that is the problem, spot on, we need to take the risk, or else we doom being flooded!

Actually, frankly speaking, yes! But is there any government who will take the risk?

Man, I'll be affected too. I'll no longer be able to ride in a polluting car like the ones we have!

[Saladin]

Actually, frankly speaking, yes! But is there any government who will take the risk?

Man, I'll be affected too. I'll no longer be able to ride in a polluting car like the ones we have!

I know man, but soon u wont have any streets to drive them on!

I mean, like we already have crappy streets!

[$tyli$h Executive]

I know man, but soon u wont have any streets to drive them on!

I mean, like we already have crappy streets!

Ah, lets hope that never happens!

[Freaked12]

I am not done yet.
Aight.

I am just exhausted

[$tyli$h Executive]

Its ok. Go ahead Arsenal, the posts are on the previous page.

[elemis]

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.

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]

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.

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