Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr
We've been paying for it, that's for sure - look at the BP oil spill, for starters. the healthcare costs that get paid for by fuel taxes in other countries. Or the air quality in some major cities in the US.
(Even if the money isn't being directly used to internalize those externalities (and in some cases it can't), it discourages fuel consumption, which reduces the pollution anyway.)
|
Say there is a large oil spill what, ever 20 years or so. What gets done with the money in the mean time?
If they can't leave social security alone and use the money for its intended purpose then I guarantee they wont save the environmental slush fund for the environment.
Plus if the government sets aside money to clean up oil spills that will just further encourage unsafe practices by the oil companies. If the oil companies know they are on the hook for environmental damage they cause and they will be fined by the government every day until the problem is fixed they will think very carefully befor they try something risky.
So I should have to pay for someone else's poor air quality.
How about no.
The U.S. uses more fuel than ever and the air has been getting cleaner and cleaner over the last 30 years. Reducing fuel consumption by some infinitesimal small amout will have the same effect on air quality.
So the answer is, to some people, increase taxes, fuel government waste, increase fuel prices and have virtually 0 effect on the environment aside from encouraging the oil companies to take more risks wagering the environment.
Excuse me if I don't sign up right away.