7 ms·

Perhaps someone better versed in economics can help me here: isn't this the type of thing where a tax might be useful- for example, a tax on products that use

Perhaps someone better versed in economics can help me here: isn't this the type of thing where a tax might be useful- for example, a tax on products that use 'new' plastic/glass as opposed to recycled? basically, convert the 'cost' of garbage everywhere into an actual cost?

mikeash 11y ago
I don't think it's necessary, because people already pay to dispose of garbage. The cost isn't borne by the manufacturer, but as long as it's borne by somebody involved in the transaction, it'll be accounted for. Taxes are useful to capture externalities, where the costs imposed are on other people unrelated to the transaction. For example, taxing air pollution helps to capture the costs it imposes on the general population, which the manufacturer and their customer could otherwise ignore.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  Problem is, people paying to dispose of garbage are not paying the entire environmental cost of the growing landfill. They're just (barely) paying the operational cost of transporting their junk to the landfill. In a perfect world, your garbage bill would include the total environmental impact of your choice to use and throw away disposable products. Until the "throw it away" lifestyle hits people's wallets, it's not going to change. Quantifying that cost is a challenge--maybe start with how much $$ it would take to "un-product" the product and return it back to the raw materials it came from. In some cases, we'd find it probably costs more to un-make a product than it was sold for. Could also (in addition to, or instead of) charge the MANUFACTURER for a portion of this shared environmental cost, as they ultimately chose to make a product designed to be turned into pollution.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's a good point. I think the best approach there would be to tax the landfills themselves. I wouldn't want to put a tax on the manufacturers, because you'll end up discouraging reuse. You don't want somebody who comes up with a novel way of using old Coke bottles to pay the same as somebody who just pitches them.
steamy 11y ago
Why do you go for the route of punishment (taxes) and not try positive reinforcement instead like incentives and or tax breaks?
- fake44637 11y ago
  Or a mix of both: start charging (more) for waste disposal but make recycling pickup free.
  - steamy 11y ago
    I'm no big fan of taxes and big govt.
    - freehunter 11y ago
      How are incentives and tax breaks any less "big government" than a tax itself? You still need an agency to oversee the administration of the incentive and tax break. That argument isn't anti-big government, it's "I don't want to pay for my negative externalities". Taxes are a cost of doing business. Tax breaks and incentives is unearned income.
      - steamy 11y ago
        Just for the record, I'm not in favor of big biz either. Apparently from the discussion here, working with recycled material is more costly for corporations and therefore they would not be compelled to give up profits to save the environment and improve sustainability. So, it's now either the people's or the govt's duty to step in and try to mitigate the risk since the market dynamics are not favorable to work on their own. People or govt could help by subsidizing the cost of recycling the materials and making it more appealing for businesses to use them in their manufacturing processes and therefore preserving the environment. As to which is better raising taxes or giving tax breaks from the point of view of govt interference, I believe that incentive is less invasive and more importantly less coercive than raising taxes and distorting the market and pushing the increase in operating costs to the consumers instead.
fake44637 11y ago
It turns out this is referred to as a Pigovian tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
youngtaff 11y ago
In the UK we have a landfill tax in an attempt to drive up recycling rates which alongside kerb collection of recyclables has worked Unfortunately it's also leading to local government approving incinerators for other types of rubbish

mikeash 11y ago

I don't think it's necessary, because people already pay to dispose of garbage. The cost isn't borne by the manufacturer, but as long as it's borne by somebody involved in the transaction, it'll be accounted for. Taxes are useful to capture externalities, where the costs imposed are on other people unrelated to the transaction. For example, taxing air pollution helps to capture the costs it imposes on the general population, which the manufacturer and their customer could otherwise ignore.

ryandrake 11y ago
Problem is, people paying to dispose of garbage are not paying the entire environmental cost of the growing landfill. They're just (barely) paying the operational cost of transporting their junk to the landfill. In a perfect world, your garbage bill would include the total environmental impact of your choice to use and throw away disposable products. Until the "throw it away" lifestyle hits people's wallets, it's not going to change. Quantifying that cost is a challenge--maybe start with how much $$ it would take to "un-product" the product and return it back to the raw materials it came from. In some cases, we'd find it probably costs more to un-make a product than it was sold for. Could also (in addition to, or instead of) charge the MANUFACTURER for a portion of this shared environmental cost, as they ultimately chose to make a product designed to be turned into pollution.
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's a good point. I think the best approach there would be to tax the landfills themselves. I wouldn't want to put a tax on the manufacturers, because you'll end up discouraging reuse. You don't want somebody who comes up with a novel way of using old Coke bottles to pay the same as somebody who just pitches them.

steamy 11y ago

Why do you go for the route of punishment (taxes) and not try positive reinforcement instead like incentives and or tax breaks?

fake44637 11y ago
Or a mix of both: start charging (more) for waste disposal but make recycling pickup free.
- steamy 11y ago
  I'm no big fan of taxes and big govt.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    How are incentives and tax breaks any less "big government" than a tax itself? You still need an agency to oversee the administration of the incentive and tax break. That argument isn't anti-big government, it's "I don't want to pay for my negative externalities". Taxes are a cost of doing business. Tax breaks and incentives is unearned income.
    - steamy 11y ago
      Just for the record, I'm not in favor of big biz either. Apparently from the discussion here, working with recycled material is more costly for corporations and therefore they would not be compelled to give up profits to save the environment and improve sustainability. So, it's now either the people's or the govt's duty to step in and try to mitigate the risk since the market dynamics are not favorable to work on their own. People or govt could help by subsidizing the cost of recycling the materials and making it more appealing for businesses to use them in their manufacturing processes and therefore preserving the environment. As to which is better raising taxes or giving tax breaks from the point of view of govt interference, I believe that incentive is less invasive and more importantly less coercive than raising taxes and distorting the market and pushing the increase in operating costs to the consumers instead.

fake44637 11y ago

It turns out this is referred to as a Pigovian tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

youngtaff 11y ago

In the UK we have a landfill tax in an attempt to drive up recycling rates which alongside kerb collection of recyclables has worked Unfortunately it's also leading to local government approving incinerators for other types of rubbish