Magnus Itland ([info]itlandm) wrote,
@ 2009-03-02 13:49:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Current location:Nodeland
Current mood: sick
Entry tags:politics, science

I'm not sure who said this first. Probably not me.
If experts a hundred years ago had tried to cope with the environmental issues of 2009, they would have taxed horses, to avoid the cities drowning in manure.


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]publius1
2009-03-02 04:45 pm UTC (link)
Manure scooping requires large amounts of manpower and someone has to buy the shovels -- why not make the horse owners shoulder the burden, if they can't be bothered to clean it up themselves?

(IOW, you say this like it's automatically a stupid thing, but I don't see why it was a bad idea in 1842, had some enterprising young bureaucrat thought it up...)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]itlandm
2009-03-02 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Well, not so much stupid as uninformed. We simply do not have the option to know what the future really brings and act accordingly.

Ironically, the "manure tax" would probably have hastened the replacement of horses with automobiles when they became available. They not only solved this problem, but also freed up valuable land to grow human food instead of horse food. It seemed almost too good to be true...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cerebresque
2009-03-03 03:04 am UTC (link)
(If we can find that guy, let's bring him forward in time and put him in charge.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]publius1
2009-03-03 04:18 am UTC (link)
Rather surprised to see YOU Say that...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cerebresque
2009-03-03 01:11 pm UTC (link)
Well, you shouldn't be, 'cause your hypothetical bureaucrat appears to be advocating what's essentially Pigouvian taxation to re-internalize the cost of an externality, coupled with then spending the results of said tax on ameliorating said externality. Modulo some concerns about the ability of government to properly price externalities in the presence of special interests, this is essentially the bright green/libertarian/free-marketeer standard answer as to how to deal with externalities. (I have ranted about this before, in fact.)

I mean, it lets and sets the free market to work its magic, plus it's less Panglossian than the do-nothings, less prone to rent-seeking and corruption than cap-and-trade/pollution rights trading, less prone to regulatory capture, regulatory stasis and special interests than standard regulation, less greenwash-y than the watermelons, less bizarre poverty-cultist than the dark greens/deep greens, and less oozing with technocratic hubris than y'all's usual leftish policy wonks. What's not to like?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…