Talk:Make the Polluter Pay/@comment-252647-20130126203657

Comment thread from 2012 brought over from former wiki site:

"pollution" does not equal "depletion". It feels like we have a number of separate but related issues here: •    use (as in rental) which doesn't impact what's available for everyone else (although there may be different fees for different types of enties or use - e.g., for-profit) •    depletion (as in consuming a limited supply) •    pollution (as in degrading the quality of) This item conflates pollution and depletion. Perhaps they can be combined into "harm". Also, although "social costs" are included theoretically, they don't fall into the "pollution" category. If we want to keep companies from ruining communities by taking their jobs elsewhere (or barganing for tax breaks in order to move into a community), we need to internalize THOSE costs. Not sure where such purely social costs are accounted for in your cards. furthermore, "selling citizens what they already own" is a USE issue, not a pollution (degradation) issue nor even neceesarily a depletion issue (e.g., the private profitable use of public park land). These first three cards need to be re-thought-out. The overlaps are confusing. April 5, 2012 by Tomatlee

'' Good points. I simplified this one. Overlapped with the next anyway:  Pay for Depleting the Commons will try to sort these out in general as descrete issues-- may not get all the way there for initial printed draft, but it's a goal. April 27, 2012 by Jatlee ''