You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #63: I think you've got the gist [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
dcfirefighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I think you've got the gist
and make no mistake about it, no one taxes just like this, so we're all in the realm of reasonable conjecture.

I think you've got it:
A copper extractor bears heavily on 'Land' while a copper recycler bears heavily on 'Labor' and 'Capital'.
Much like a coal plant bears heavily on 'Land' while alternatives typically bear heavily on 'Labor' and 'Capital'.

The question, often asked of this type of scenario, is does this type of economic model encourage more rapid extraction? I suppose the answer depends on how well we assess externalities and how we set up the assessment of extraction right leases.

Consider an oil well:
If the right to extract were auctioned, without limits to extraction, the the owner would tend to want to extract as much as was economically possible. If oil is scarce and demand is high, oil would be extracted quickly, as the price would allow for heroic methods of recovery. Conversely, if all significant taxes were collected on Carbon emissions, as well as other pollution, the demand for oil would be reduced, and the price for crude would only support more conventional methods of recovery. If the externalities were collected, likely tar sand recovery would never be economically feasible.

Extraction of renewable, but limited resources would likely require a scientific determination of a sustainable yield - a process that would possibly be distorted by lobbyists. However, it would be an improvement over current, 'owned' rights - where the rights to fish, or otherwise extract, are tradeable and profitable for the owners - encouraging speculuative hoarding and acting as a barrier to entry for more efficient extraction.

As unextracted nonrenewable resources become scarcer sources of that resources become more valuable, but then so does recycling and alternatives. Market preference would determine whether it was more economic to conserve, use alternatives, extract more, or recycle. The rates for such leases would be set by what the market would bear, either by open auctions or by assessment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC