|
Yeah, but social cost is, just, like, your opinion, man (To quote The Big L, not to insult you). In other words, the cost is subjective, which opens it up to endless debate. It might anger some people more than others, so their "cost" is greater than to someone that isn't as angered by it.
Trying to determine cost will always be arbitrary because it will involve non-agreed upon assumptions about what constitutes a cost.
That said, it's perfectly reasonable to tax the consumption of things society views as harmful to achieve the lower rates of consumption they find acceptable. Fine, the US taxes petrol products to achieve x rate of consumption and suffers the associated economic loss, and demands that the other countries do the same. Do we then send nukes to China and India when they fail to meet our standards?
The problem is intractable without technology eventually providing markets with compelling solutions.
|