Last Friday, some of the Antiplanner’s readers were outraged at my suggestion that owners of studded snow tires should be required to pay a tax equal to the amount of damage their tires do the roads. Somehow, asking people to be responsible for the costs they impose on others was considered to be an antilibertarian threat to personal freedom.
Just for the benefit of those who still don’t get it, libertarianism doesn’t mean freedom to do whatever you want. It means freedom to do whatever you want provided you don’t hurt anyone else and you pay the full cost of what you do including paying to use other people’s property at a price that they are willing to accept. For the record, roads are the property of state, county, or city road agencies, and you have the freedom to use them so long as you obey those agencies’ rules. Libertarians might prefer the roads be private, but the rules apply whether they are private or public.
Meanwhile, other commenters asked why the Antiplanner wants to fix the studded tire externality but not the pollution externality. Of course I want to fix the pollution externality, but I want to do it right. Raising gas taxes to deal with toxic pollutants, for example, is the wrong way to go because emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and other toxics are not proportional to the amount of gasoline consumed.
Faithful Antiplanner ally Joel Schwartz argues that catalytic converters and other tailpipe controls have practically eliminated toxic air pollution problems from most areas outside of southern California. Since cars are getting cleaner every year, Schwartz might argue that we don’t need a major new pollution control program.
Still, some problems remain. University of California economist Mark Delucchi estimates that health problems associated with pollution in southern California cost about 2 cents per passenger mile in 1990. (See page 3; notice that buses were 20 cents, rail 5 cents, and even electric cars were 1.5 cents per passenger mile.) Improved pollution controls have probably cut the cost of driving almost in half, but even a penny per passenger mile is significant.
The best way to fix this is to measure how much pollution comes out of each vehicle and charge for the pollution it emits. University of Denver chemist Donald Stedman has developed low-cost remote-sensing devices that can measure tailpipe emissions. Cities could distribute hundreds of these on various highways and streets and send every one a bill each month. This would encourage people to maintain their cars to reduce emissions, retrofit cars with emission-reducing devices (such as catalytic converter preheaters), and buy new cars that emit less.
This is why natural penis enlargement exercises are natural activities that aim to improve the size wholesale viagra see that of the arteries. Individuals taking Sildenafil medications have reported up to 88% improvement. buy cheapest cialis People even after being so stressed out were helpless and could not do anything to get through the disorder and order generic viagra also the medicine which consists of Sildenafil citrate which is a PDE5 inhibitor. Here we will take a look at some of the benefits of natural male enhancement over prescription drugs. 1.) You do not take the medicines in a proper or instructed way, it can worsen the condition. cialis purchase
To truly be effective, all of the revenues from pollution fees should be spent on activities and programs that will cost-effectively do more to reduce air pollution. These programs could include traffic signal coordination, buying and junking older pollutomobiles, and offering assistance to low-income people to maintain their cars.
Whenever I offer this proposal, someone says, “That would just give the wealthy a license to pollute.” No, actually they already have a license to pollute. This plan gives the wealthy, and everyone else, an incentive not to pollute. If people choose to pollute anyway, the fees they pay will help reduce pollution somewhere else in the airshed.
What about greenhouse gases? The Antiplanner remains unconvinced that global climate change is the major problem that some say it is. But if we have to do something, cap-and-trade may be the worst possible solution because it is so susceptible to manipulation and corruption.
Unlike toxics, for gasoline-powered vehicles greenhouse gas emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel they consume. So a carbon tax makes sense. But the revenues from that tax should be spent solely on activities that will cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the economy.
The Antiplanner keeps harping on cost effectiveness because so much of what the government does is not cost-effective. Instead, it is dominated by the mentality that, “We have to do something, and something wasteful is at least something, so let’s do something wasteful.”
How to we guarantee spending on pollution-reduction activities is cost-effective? How about giving the money to an agency that has a mandate to cost-effectively reduce pollution or greenhouse gases or whatever. Then create a citizen-enforcement process allowing any citizen to challenge the agency if it is not spending the money cost-effectively. “Cost effective” can be quantitatively determined with little subjectivity, so it would be easy for the courts to determine whether the agency was complying with the law or not.
http://www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf
Todd Litman has writen about that.
ROT: Last Friday, some of the Antiplanner’s readers were outraged at my suggestion that owners of studded snow tires should be required to pay a tax equal to the amount of damage their tires do the roads. Somehow, asking people to be responsible for the costs they impose on others was considered to be an antilibertarian threat to personal freedom.
THWM: Though this still isn’t taking a true “free market” stance, because there would still be regulation. This is where you got into trouble last week.
ROT: Just for the benefit of those who still don’t get it, libertarianism doesn’t mean freedom to do whatever you want. It means freedom to do whatever you want provided you don’t hurt anyone else and you pay the full cost of what you do including paying to use other people’s property at a price that they are willing to accept. For the record, roads are the property of state, county, or city road agencies, and you have the freedom to use them so long as you obey those agencies’ rules. Libertarians might prefer the roads be private, but the rules apply whether they are private or public.
THWM: It’s easy to go 100% private sector with some thing like an expressway, since it’s limited access.
Though the street in front of your house has another importance as a commons and this is where the problems start.
What about greenhouse gases? The Antiplanner remains unconvinced that global climate change is the major problem that some say it is. But if we have to do something, cap-and-trade may be the worst possible solution because it is so susceptible to manipulation and corruption.
Attack away, Mr. Karlock.
D4P said: (Parroting the AntiPlanner) What about greenhouse gases? The Antiplanner remains unconvinced that global climate change is the major problem that some say it is. But if we have to do something, cap-and-trade may be the worst possible solution because it is so susceptible to manipulation and corruption.
Attack away, Mr. Karlock.
JK: OK
Antiplanner: The Antiplanner remains unconvinced that global climate change is the major problem that some say it is.
JK: Actually it is probably no problem what-so-ever. As far as I can tell, no one has ever proven that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming. One late peer-reviewed paper says that a 10x increase in CO2 will only increase temperature by 3 degrees. Therefore a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature by only 1 degree. That is a benefit to all of mankind. It will increase food supply and decrease deaths from cold. Who could be against that except a deep green?
Antiplanner: But if we have to do something, cap-and-trade may be the worst possible solution because it is so susceptible to manipulation and corruption.
JK: How can we be sure that it is the worst? It is certainly very bad for everyone except Al Gore and his Wall street cronies that expect to make BILLIONS from trading carbon credits. But could it be even worse? Probably – BHO could decide to just cut off electric plants 8 hrs/day to cut carbon. He could decide that driving is illegal and we all must walk, bike or use transit for ALL travel. But his is not as stupid as the typical planner, so he will not even try this.
Unfortunately some fools have bought into the modern Music Man’s (Al Gore) pitch that we have a problem. We have a problem right here in river city! It is corrupting out youth. It is destroying the Earth. It is man’s evil excesses. It is carbon!!!!!
Thanks
JK
I agree with the Antiplanner’s position on externalities. Those who impose costs on others are obligated to pay for the damages.
The problem with most proposed solutions to externalities is the mechanism used to compensate those who are damaged. The studded snow tire example is good because it is very clear who causes the damage, how much the damage is, who is damaged, and how the damaged can be compensated.
Most discussions regarding economic externalities seem to make the assumption that politicians and tax collectors are the damaged party so they should get the compensatory damages. This seems like nonsense. P.J. O’Rourke said many years ago something like, “Giving power and money to elected officials is like giving liquor and car keys to teenage boys.” If we are going to solve the externalities problem we have to work very hard to make sure the mechanisms used do not have unintended consequences.
Karlock,
I’m not going to debate with you weather or not auto emissions contribute to global warming, but I will take this stance.
FACT: THE EMISSIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE TAILPIPES OF ALMOST EVERY VEHICLE ON THE ROAD ARE TOXIC, DANGEROUS, AND IN SOME CASES DEADLY.
Don’t believe me? Here is an experiment I’ve designed just for you Mr. Karlock.
1. Pull your car into your garage and close the garage door.
2. With the car still running roll down all of the windows and sit behind the wheel for about an hour or so.
3. Get back to us tomorrow and let us know what happened.
“The best way to fix this is to measure how much pollution comes out of each vehicle and charge for the pollution it emits. University of Denver chemist Donald Stedman has developed low-cost remote-sensing devices that can measure tailpipe emissions.”
There are 62 million registered cars in America. I think “low cost” may be a bit of an understatement. I do like the idea however. We should attach similar devices to power plants, chimneys, busses, trains etc. But when the price tag comes down for these retrofits who is going to pay for it? Will O’Toole just label it another “Government Planning Boondoggle?”
Bennett, that experiment doesn’t prove much of anything. Too much water can be toxic. Most everything is toxic, what matter is how much.
BTW: 62 million is just personal CARS, not trucks, heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, semis, busses etc.
“Bennett, that experiment doesn’t prove much of anything. Too much water can be toxic. Most everything is toxic, what matter is how much.”
Touché.
But lets take that perspective a bit further. There are an estimated 250-300 million vehicles on the road in America. That’s 300 million devices that if you were in a reasonably sized room with just one running for 30min, it would kill you.
Your right prk, it is a matter of how much, and there has been volumes of peer reviewed literature (though not explicitly proving that co2 causes global warming) dedicated to determining how much. There have been a handful of Nobel laureates who have won the prize trying to answer the question of how much. The bottom line from all of this science is that what we have now is TOO MUCH! So when I, the non-scientist layman, begin to formulate my view, I chose the side of the geniuses whom have dedicated their professional life to objectively answering the question over a faceless blogger who has dedicated his ideology to preserving his personal freedoms, no matter their impact on others, at all costs.
I would like to state that it was not the suggestion that sparked intrigue (or outrage as you interpreted it) but your suggesting it. A tax is a government mechanism used to implement (as incentive, disincentive) some policy. A tax cannot be merely a neutral means of revenue collection. Someone (the gummint) must decide who pays and someone (the gummint) must decide where the revenue goes. What is this but planning?
Do we know how well Stedman’s equipment works? It seems one thing to do a drive-by roadside test to see if you’re exceeding some limit. It’s quite another to measure exactly how much is coming out of the tailpipe. And even assuming it can do that accurately, it would only show how much my car is emitting WHEN I use it. It wouldn’t reflect the overall amount my car is polluting. If I only drive my car 3k miles a year, it seems like this set up would have me paying just as much as someone who drives 20k / year. Maybe I’m missing something?
To me it would seem we would need to know miles driven. And if we knew that wouldn’t it be more cost affective to instead of testing each and every vehicle, to just use some actuarial tables for the make, model and trim line as an assumption for how much that car would’ve polluted based on those miles and roll that tax in along with a road use fee based on those miles?
But if the gas tax has so terribly failed to be keep up with costs, a tax that is roughly intended to be a fee for miles driven, how can we expect this new pollution tax to do so?
#11 was to AP on his opening salvo.
Ok so we add a new externality tax.
It will most likely be spent like the tobacco settlement a few years ago. Going into the general funds of the states and not used for the cancer patents it was said to have harmed.
I’m cannot support a ban or a tax at this point. There are a few market factors that I think will drive consumers away from studded tires without unnecessary government intrusion.
• Studdless winter tires are a market that has not existed for very long. Every winter new models seem to be released, it is a growing market.
• There are various and significant costs for the owner of the studded tires (decreased mpg for me, noise and comfort, sacrificing wet weather safety)
• Improvements in traction control and stability control technology. I know for myself the decision to go to studs was driven by dissatisfaction with the traction of my vehicle. Had the vehicle had better inherent traction characteristics, I may never have gone to the dark side.
So why not just wait a generation or two and see if studded tire use drops to acceptable levels on its own? I would say the generational lifespan of a set winter tires is about 5 seasons.
But if I had to choose between ban and tax, I guess it would be ban. A tax doesn’t force innovation. Bans and costs of repair provide the incentive for innovation. If you recoup the cost of repair, you just lost one more research partner.
But please let the cops, tow trucks and good old boys with big old pre-90’s trucks keep their studs. Someone has to pull the rest of us out of the snow bank.
I’ve always loved how Florida has a ban on studded tires. Isn’t their highest mountain a 40ft landfill?
-steve
bennett said: (though not explicitly proving that co2 causes global warming)
JK: If, after all these years, nobody has been able to prove CO2 causes warming, isn’t that a big red flag that there is a problem with the logic?
Lets review:
To justify a program that will lower the standard of living of most people, push many into poverty and kill some, we should be able to prove that the proposed action has a very good chance of success. To do that we need to:
1. Prove that our recent climate is unusually warm on a geological scale, not just the last 100 years.
2. Prove that CO2 causes warming and more CO2 will cause more warming.
3. Prove that the degree of warming is actually net harmful.
4. Prove that man is the source of that CO2 increase.
5. Prove that the proposed cure is better and living with the alleged warming.
If you cannot prove all five, you have no case for taking action because your are attacking a non cause of the alleged problem.
As far as I can tell, none of the five has been proven.
BTW: Absent proof that man is the cause and hence can be the cure, drowning polar bears, melting ice caps, melting glaciers, less alkali seas, and thriving corals are simply not relevant.
Thanks
JK
The notion that human beings can “prove” something (other than mathematical equations and tautologies) is simply false.
Under Mr. Karlock’s line of thinking, bullets fired from guns into live human bodies have not been proven to cause damage, because we can’t prove that the damage wouldn’t have happened in the absence of the bullet. While it might be true that damage routinely follows bullet entry, we can never know for sure that the damage wouldn’t have happened anyway (e.g. from other causes). All we can do is assume one way or the other, which isn’t the same as “proof”. The same can be said for cigarette smoking. We can’t prove, for example, that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, kidney cancer, and emphysema in my now-deceased grandfather, because he might have gotten lung cancer, kidney cancer, and emphysema anyway, even if he hadn’t smoked. So, in Mr. Karlock’s world, cigarettes should be considered harmless.
The bottom line for humanity is that we do not (and will probably never) have perfect knowledge about how the world functions and how our behaviors impact our health, the environment, other organisms, etc. Mr. Karlock’s requirement that we have perfect knowledge before making decisions is simply unrealistic.
I don’t know how the Antiplanners around here feel about George W. Bush’s pre-emptive strike philosophy, but I have found it ironic that many of the same people who supported the idea of bombing Iraq because they “might” have WMDs are completely opposed to the idea of modifying their lifestyle/consumption behavior/government policy/etc. because such things “might” be contributing to climate change. For whatever reason, the mere possibility that Iraq might have WMDs was enough for them to support killing of thousands of Iraqis, but when it comes to the potential threat of climate change, the standard of “proof” they require before making changes expands exponentially beyond the capability of humanity to provide.
Why is it that so many Americans are willing to kill thousands of Iraqis but not willing to live a marginally simpler lifestyle that has a smaller impact on the planet?
From global warming to weapons of mass destruction and war.
I’m convinced, lets put cap and trade and other global warming theories to work. So what if we are in a recession and global warming might just be caused by the Sun. Why wait until we know for sure.
Every day we are one day, closer to death.
D4P said: The notion that human beings can “prove†something (other than mathematical equations and tautologies) is simply false.
JK: We manage to prove that criminals are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that structures will not fall down given a know set of parameters and you are telling me we can’t prove anything.
You are merely trying to side step the fact that there is no science under the pyramid of BS that AL Gore has built on the global warming lie.
You are just unwilling to accept the truth, probably because you are salivating at the opportunity to destroy industrial civilization in a misguided attempt to save the earth.
Thanks
JK
We manage to prove that criminals are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
No we don’t. We present evidence in support of guilt and in support of innocence, and then people decide which argument is more compelling.
“Proof” has nothing to do with it.
D4p, you are grasping at straws.
Thanks
JK
If only we had a Planner to assess and judge the evidence…then, guilt would be certain.
Proof of buffoonery.
For Christmas, I want Santa to take y’all off the payroll.
D4P said: We present evidence in support of guilt and in support of innocence, and then people decide which argument is more compelling.
JK: OK, I’ll bite – show us your evidence that CO2 can actually cause warming.
Since you say it does not raise to the level of proof, please make it above the level of laughable.
We already know some counter arguments:
1. “At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations.†And a cause cannot follow and effect. (Al Gore showed such a chart and gave the impression that CO2 led temperature – he lied.)
2. There appear to be no peer review papers that prove CO2 causes dangerous warming.
3. CO2’s absorption spectra overlaps that of H2O to the extent that it has little effect in the presence of H2O.
4. All of the many touted effects of warming do not shed light on the cause or implicate CO2 as the cause.
Thanks
JK
OK, I’ll bite – show us your evidence that CO2 can actually cause warming.
No thanks. People believe what they want to believe. Evidence is typically just a word for “That which we use to support our beliefs”, not “That which compels us to believe what we believe.” I can only assume that you’ve seen all of the same information I have, and if you don’t believe that CO2 can actually cause warming, then you’re not going to change your mind based on anything I say.
Millions of people thought that the evidence “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend. Yet millions believed that the same evidence didn’t prove OJ’s guilt.
Why? Because people believed what they wanted to believe.
D4P said: Evidence is typically just a word for “That which we use to support our beliefsâ€Â, not “That which compels us to believe what we believe.â€Â
JK: OK, I get it – you have an unsupportable belief in global warming. There is a name for that: Religion.
Please quit trying to force your unsupportable religion on others through the force of government.
Thanks
JK
you have an unsupportable belief in global warming
No, but people believe what they want to believe. I had a supportable belief that OJ was guilty, but millions of people looked at the same evidence and concluded that he was innocent.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
D4P said: (quoting JK) you have an unsupportable belief in global warming
D4P said: No, but people believe what they want to believe
JK: NO! Then lets see your supporting evidence.
If it exists.
Thanks
JK
Then lets see your supporting evidence.
I have to assume that you’ve already seen my supporting evidence. If not, you certainly wouldn’t present yourself as an expert on the subject the way you do around here.
Given that the credibility of the source typically matters more than the evidence itself, it’d be much more compelling for you if the Antiplanner were to present the evidence that leads HIM to conclude that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there are reasons to be concerned about C02 emissions.
You’re not going to accept any evidence I present because you don’t consider me to be a credible source of information. But you might accept evidence from the Antiplanner.
D4P said: I have to assume that you’ve already seen my supporting evidence.
JK: Not that I am aware of. Unless you are going to pawn off Al Gores SiFi film as “supporting evidenceâ€Â.
The real reason you are dragging your heels is that you know you have no evidence. Your beliefs are based on crap.
Thanks
JK
Not that I am aware of. Unless you are going to pawn off Al Gores SiFi film as “supporting evidenceâ€Â.
Then why do you act so certain? Why do you call other people idiots and zombies if you haven’t seen the evidence that leads them to believe what they do?
BTW: You seem to believe that Al Gore “discovered” climate change, and that no one had heard of it before his movie came along. FYI: scientists had been talking about climate change for many years before Al Gore. In a lot of ways, Al Gore simply summarized previous findings. You don’t seem to recognize that.
To repeat: I will not present any evidence, because you’ll reject it and call me names. Then we’ll be right back where we started, except for the fact that I would have wasted a bunch of time presenting the evidence. No thanks. You know where to find the same information I can find: go find it yourself, and then reject it the way you would if I were to present it to you. I’m not your personal research assistant.
Since the Antiplanner is getting paid to publish papers on the Internet in which he labels CO2 a “greenhouse gas” and communicates his concern about CO2 emissions, it seems like he should want to explain why he is concerned. It also seems like he’d want his minions to share his concern, so I’m confused as to why he won’t further explain his published position.
Please, Antiplanner: tell Mr. Karlock why you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and why you’re concerned about CO2 emissions. There’s no guarantee he’ll listen, but you’re the only one who has a chance of convincing him.
paraphrasing:
Please, no feeding the anti-science trolls. This is purposeful spam to hide the messages above.
DS
Hey D4p & Dan Why are you refusing to show your evidence?
Is it because it does not exist? That you KNOW it is of such a crappy quality as to be laughable?
You just WANT to believe, like a religion, so that you can savor the destruction of modern society with misguided “solutions” to the non-problem.
You are hoping to watch people suffer for their “sin” of prosperity and well being. And especially their combined sins of living and traveling in the manner that they want instead of the manner that you want for others, probably while living on your own 1 acre lot and driving an SUV.
Thanks
JK
Mr. Karlock your pseudo libertarian political belifes are just as much as a religion to you!
JK:
The difference is that I want people to live free.
You want to dictate you green, deluded, 1900s religion to other people.
You are in the tradition of Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot.
Thanks
JK
Mr. Karlock you’re a funny grumpy guy.
I have a problem with applying the libertarian logic to air quality. ROT and the anti-planner followers (not to lump people into a category) largely applaud cars for having drastically reduced emissions over the years but do not realize that these aforementioned reduced emissions did not occur on the “free market”. The EPA (a government controlled entity) mandated that cars have reduced emissions, but ROT always gives credit to the automobile industry for these reduces emissions and improved air quality. In fact, the automobile has been fighting against these measures drastically for years.
The whole reason for catalytic converters was because of the EPA, as well as increased MPG standards after 30 years of stalemating.
In a true libertarian fashion, car companies would produce more fuel efficient automobiles and with better air quality because people mandated it with their wallets, not through government intervention. As stated in this article a libertarian believes that we should have freedom to do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else in doing so – but you have to realize that automobiles are still going to be associated with massive amounts of pollution (air and water) irregardless if there’s increased emissions standards or that someone is taxed.
Can I get some explanation on this or am I missing something?
WS, you just figured it out “The Antiplanner”, is an oxymoron!