> One cannot coercively distort the market with government power and expect that life will not, "uh, uh, find a way."
Uh, yes you can. Just look at the different car fleets in Europe (where gasoline taxes are high) vs the US (where gasoline taxes are low.) The first thing I notice when driving from the airport either in Europe when I'm visiting or the US when I'm back is the different composition of cars on the road - the US has lots of pickups and SUVs, where Europe has a lot of small coupes and sedans. That's driven by gas pricing, and mpg standards.
> Great intentions do not always lead to great outcomes (often the opposite).
"Do not always" is not the same as "cannot". It is true that incentives can have unexpected results, but as another poster replied, the answer to that is to iterate and improve rather than "not try in the first place". Markets do not lead to perfection without guidance.
Why many people in the US buy trucks and SUVs over cars is due to a lot of factors. A major one that is not well known is that US auto manufactures have had a high incentive to promote them since a 1964 tax law[1] set a import 25% tax on light trucks.
I'm skeptical that the import duty had a significant effect on truck and SUV sales in the US. A lot of this is probably cultural, coupled with the fact that much of the United States wasn't really settled and developed (at scale) until after WWII. Pickups are just more useful in places that are less dense. Plus, they look cool and are fun to drive.
>Robert Z. Lawrence, professor of international trade and investment at Harvard University, contends the tax crippled the U.S. automobile industry by insulating it from real competition in light trucks for 40 years.
This comment also made me laugh. I doubt that we'd be seeing everyone drive Tatas around the ranch instead of Fords if they didn't have a 25% import duty.
(my opinion) Sorry, but trucks are some of the ugliest vehicles. They’re basically big, fat blocky designs with annoying sound and air pollution. They’re also high set and often can’t corner well.
I know what you mean. You can still buy cheap incandescent bulbs where I live, despite EU-wide phaseout, because they're clearly labeled "not for domestic use"...
But this shows that regulating the market is not a "fire and forget" deal, but an iterative process. First you make the main bad thing more expensive than good behavior. Then you look for "life finding a way", "clever entrepreneurs" abusing loopholes, and make those more expensive too, one by one. You end when you hit diminishing returns.
Eventually you create a black market like drug cartels and the Russian mob. Perhaps we should legalize narcotics and sell them in Walgreens and CVS instead of "subsidizing" SPECTRE.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -Princess Leia
The point isn’t to eliminate literally all plastic use. It’s to save the freaking planet. Taxing plastics based on their harm to the environment has the capability to drastically decrease their use, and possibly (help) save the planet.
> Eventually you create a black market like drug cartels and the Russian mob.
Not necessarily. These kinds of black markets form around things with specific demand profiles; plastic for packaging and disposable goods isn't one of them. Also, I'm not talking about putting people in jail for this, just making the whole thing much more expensive (through taxation and maybe extra bureaucracy). People aren't gonna start dealing plastic forks and individually plastic-wrapped cookies on the black market; they simply aren't gonna bother making them and switch to different materials.
Tax products that make use of non-recyclable materials unless there is a good reason an alternative cannot be made or unless the product is a durable good that can last for 10+ years or is proven to be the most environmentally friendly of the alternatives.
You can also do things like giving back a deposit on some plastics, cans, and glass bottles. The reason Norway recycles so many of their single use bottles is because of this. IIRC, companies get a tax break for participating in the program.
Fund recycling centers and subsidise them so they are more standardised. Require that centers send plastics that they cannot recycle to a place that can. Subsidise this as well.
And lastly, when problems come up with your solutions, fix them. You don't have to have great outcomes at first, merely sufficient ones or ones that are better than the current system. Things happen, and anyone should be prepared for it.
I agree with your sentiment. But usually I see “life finding a way” when there is just an outright ban or law, with plenty of loopholes. I think banning the wrong things is much less effective than providing the correct incentives to do the right thing. Ie tax plastic bottles or something. However I will give you that there well may be unseen consequences to this, and sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t, but ya gotta try something...
>>> One cannot coercively distort the market with government power and expect that life will not, "uh, uh, find a way."
Incorrect. Taxation has proven to be a very effective way to incentivize certain behaviors and disincentivize others. It's a very powerful tool to deal with many types of problems that typically ail free markets, such as tragedy of the commons.
