Doc Snow says
"Polluter pays" has become a pretty accepted regulatory principle in many countries, and, I think, rightfully so. The payments can be taxes, fines, or emission permit fees, but if some organization is going to profit by degrading a public good, they need to pay. Otherwise, what incentive is there for them to do the right thing?
dabeaner says
How about taxing breeders who reproduce at more than replacement levels for the pollution that their excess spawn cause?
billups.13 says
Why not? I don't see why we can't even litter but huge companies can pretty much do whatever they want. But, I think they would still get out of it by exporting their pollution to China.
Caerleon says
Yes, they should. But that alone will not solve the problem in the long run. They will just pass the added expense on to the end user one way or another. There must be a way to encourage companies to find other ways to produce their goods in the cleanest way they can. To be fair to them this won't happen over night. Technologies may not be available or expensive. The tax money could be used to support that development. So a plan for getting rid of the polluting technologies must be in place.
You can vote each answer up or down to show your support or disapproval. You cannot flag an answer, but if an answer receives enough down votes compared to up votes, then it will become hidden.
