What if anything is done to control externalities?
the effect for abandoning negative and positives externalities, are they linked? psps, this is my first time posting on this this forum... can y help me ^^ thx very much
Vehicle pollution?
How to Reduce Air Pollution from Cars and Trucks Since most pollution from cars and trucks is due to the burning of fuel, you can reduce pollution from these sources by burning less fuel, burning fuel cleaner and burning cleaner fuel. Burn Less Fuel * Next time you purchase a vehicle, buy the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets your average daily needs, preferably one that is rated at 32 MPG or more. Rent or borrow a larger vehicle or trailer for the occasional large load. o U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Economy Site Exit to the Web o Greener Cars Exit to the Web * If you have more than one vehicle, use the most fuel-efficient one when possible. * Use transit and car- or van-pool as often as you can. Doing so three times a week can reduce your fuel consumption up to 50%. o Metro Commuter Services, Metropolitan Council Public Transit Information Exit to the Web * Bike or walk to avoid fuel use entirely. o Sustainable Transportation Initiatives, Minnesota Department of Transportation Exit to the Web * Telecommute (working from a home-based location via phone or Internet) to reduce driving o Sustainable Transportation Initiatives, Minnesota Department of Transportation Exit to the Web o Midwest Insitute for Telecommuting Education (MITE) Exit to the Web * Minimize driving by working and playing closer to home. * Plan errands to avoid unnecessary driving. * Accelerate gradually-a smooth start uses less fuel
Some economics help please.. i need help understanding a question?
I believe this person is arguing that they're making money by allowing other factories to pollute. If firms are able to trade their emissions, then it's in their monetary interest to reduce their own pollution. This is superior to the current method because right now, it's in no one's interest to reduce pollution. Whoever made that argument must think pollution must be eliminated at any cost. The advantage of the trading system is that it allows the factories to adjust individually to the pollution restrictions because the government isn't smart enough to know which on which factories to reduce pollution.
Some economics help please.. i need help understanding a question?
A very important question. It is all about political science, ethics, and values: by what criteria should a proposed law be judged? The objections voiced are not whether tradeable emissions permits reduce the total pollution level, or whether or not they are the best way of doing so, but of a side effect that they may have - that people who have "sinned" by polluting greatly may get rewarded for having sinned while those who were virtuous and did not pollute do not get rewarded. Note that this righteousness has been an ongoing theme in American politics. For example, just before the Civil War, a compromise was proposed by which slavery would be abolished and all slave owners would be compensated for their loss by the government. But the abolitionists objected to letting the slave owners "profit" from having owned slaves, rejected the compromise, and we had the Civil War (this isn't to say the compromise would have worked - just that it was rejected) http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/garris... You also see this factor in discussions about drug laws: everyone recognizes that the existing drug laws do not work very well. Some argue that a law that is bad and not respected should be abolished. Others argue that repealing the drug laws would make it seem that drug use was acceptable and they are morally outraged at that possibility. More generally, the issue of compromise in politics is a thorny one. Some see it as essential, while others see it as succumbing to the lures of the devil. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/01/24/ch... http://www.thudfactor.com/uncategorized/... http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060626news.asp BTW, here is an interesting paper on "Cool Analysis Versus Moral Outrage in the Development of Federal Environmental Criminal Law" http://eprints.law.duke.edu/489/1/35_Wm._%26_Mary_L._Rev._251_(1993-1994).pdf