Jan 11 2008
Reducing negative externalities – the European market for carbon emissions
Published by Jason Welker at 1:44 pm under Cost-minimization,Energy,Environment,Externalities,Market failure
Tighter European limits set to push up price of carbon emissions – Times Online
When it comes to correcting the market failure of negative externalities, governments have several options. The most interventionist approaches may involve placing strict limits on the amount of a pollutant firms are allowed to emit and fining them for exceeding this limit, taxing firms that pollute in order to increase their costs and decrease market supply, reducing output and increasing price closer to a socially optimal level, or simply banning the production and consumption of goods whose existence places excessive spillover costs on society.
Such interventionist approaches to externality reduction tend to require a complex bureaucracy to administer, monitor, execute and enforce. The government may not be able to determine the appropriate level of a tax on a polluter if it can’t determine the exact level of the externalized costs placed on society; the government cannot always check up on every producer in the economy to determine just exactly how much pollution each factory’s producing, and then levying a fine on excessive polluters again raises the question of how high should a penalty be?
Because of the complexities involved in the interventionist approaches above, economists have recently promoted and the worlds’ governments have begun adopting a market-based approach to reducing negative externalities, involving the creation of a whole new market: one in which the right to pollute is bought and sold by firms. This may sound crazy at first, but here’s a basic summary of how these markets work:
- A government or international agency decides on the acceptable amount of pollution in a particular region and issues permits that firms can purchase giving them the right to pollute. Each permit will allow a certain amount of pollution. The total supply of permits is perfectly inelastic since it is decided by the government agency.
- The demand for pollution permits is downward sloping. At high prices, firms will either stop polluting or pollute less by acquiring pollution-abatement equipment, which is more attractive when the rights are more expensive. If the “cost of pollution” is cheap, then firms will chose to buy permits rather than acquiring expensive abatement equipment or upgrading to “greener” technology.
- In the market for pollution permits, the “price to pollute” will be determined by the downward sloping demand among firms for pollution permits and the perfectly inelastic supply of permits determined by the number issued by the government. If the price of permits is too low to make firms bear the full environmental and social costs of their production, the government can reduce the supply thus increase the price and decrease the quantity of pollution permits demanded, reducing the negative externalities of pollution as firms will shift to greener production techniques.
There are several advantages to this system over direct government controls:
- It reduces society’s costs because pollution rights can be bought and sold. Some firms will find it cheaper to buy the rights than to acquire abatement equipment; other firms can sell their rights because they may be able to reduce pollution at a lower cost. The incentive for all firms is to reduce their own pollution and sell the permits they no longer need, adding to the profits of “green firms”.
- Conservation groups and individuals can buy permits as well as producers. If conservation or individuals wish to make it more expensive for firms to pollute, they can buy permits and hold them. This drives up the price of remaining rights, further encouraging polluters to reduce emissions.
- The revenue from the sale of pollution rights could be used to improve the environment or subsidies more environmentally friendly methods of production.
- The rising cost of pollution rights should lead to improved pollution-control techniques.
In the article above, we see how the creation of a market for carbon pollution permits in Europe evolved from a fledgling, ineffective experiment in market-based externality reduction a few years ago to a major market where billions of dollars worth of carbon permits are exchanged each day between firms, all of which have incentives to continually reduce their level of carbon emissions so as to minimize their costs and perhaps even earn revenue through the sale of unneeded permits.
The first phase (of the carbon permit market) was launched in 2005 but was widely dismissed as a failure, primarily because too many permits were granted by member states to individual polluters, leading to a collapse in market prices to as little as €1 (74p) per tonne. The slide undermined the principle of the scheme – to make carbon emissions a meaningful cost for big polluters, thereby encouraging reductions.
The key difference in the second phase is a reduction of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent in the emissions permits granted. Mr Marcu said that he expected the tougher regime to “start delivering some substantive reductions” in carbon emissions.
City analysts believe that it will lead to a big increase in the market price of carbon. Deutsche Bank expects forward prices to rise from the present level of about €23 a tonne to €35. UBS has predicted a rise to €30 a tonne.
35 euros per ton of carbon may not sound like a lot, until you consider how many millions of tons of carbon are emitted by the big factories of Europe each year. In fact, when we realize the size of this market at $100 billion, we then begin to grasp just how significant such a market can be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That means that firms are spending $100 billion for the right to pollute!
Just imagine, if you were a manager of a firm that was polluting heavily, the more expensive these permits get, the higher your average costs of production get, the less competitive you become with firms who have taken steps to clean up their production. Not only do you not have to buy as many permits once you start cleaning up, but you actually start earning revenue by selling the permits you no longer need!
A market for externality permits minimizes the role the government must play in managing the production and emission practices of the economies big polluters. Furthermore, if the permits are auctioned off from the beginning, billions can earned in revenue for the government, which in theory could be used to subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.
While it still may seem weird that governments are giving firms the right to pollute, the logic of such a plan makes sense once the picture is clear. Markets work, even when they’re being used to correct a market failure.
Discussion questions:
- What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
- Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
- What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
About the author: Jason Welker teaches International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement Economics at Zurich International School in Switzerland. In addition to publishing various online resources for economics students and teachers, Jason developed the online version of the Economics course for the IB and is has authored two Economics textbooks: Pearson Baccalaureate’s Economics for the IB Diploma and REA’s AP Macroeconomics Crash Course.
Jason is a native of the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and is a passionate adventurer, who considers himself a skier / mountain biker who teaches Economics in his free time. He and his wife keep a ski chalet in the mountains of Northern Idaho, which now that they live in the Swiss Alps gets far too little use. Read more posts by this authorRelated posts:
- Obama’s carbon market: an introduction the market-based approaches to pollution reduction
- An answer to Kevin Yeh’s excellent question about emissions monitoring…
- Robert Reich on Obama’s “cap and trade” plan for the environment
- Negative externalities of consumption: Britain’s “inebriated hooligans”
- “Global warming is one GIANT market failure”
Before reading this blog post, I found an article for homework about the aviation industry in the EU. Here is the website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/. It is kind of creepy how right after I print out the article, I read this blog post. The two seem to be perfectly connected, as the article I found, titled "Climate Pollution From Aviation Increasing", talks about the carbon emission from EU's aviation industry, and their suggested solution is, you guessed it, pollution permits.
Is it simply a coincidence, or are pollution permits extremely popular in Europe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pollution permits are extremely popular in Europe… good work Helen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It's very interesting how this whole marketing pollution rights works. In this way the "commons" in the tragedy of the commons becomes privatized, and companies are forced to take responsibility for their pollution which is being dumped into the atmosphere.
I do have one question, though, and that is how does one regulate the amount of pollution a factory dispenses into the air? How can the government be sure that a firm is not violating the law by dumping more than its licensed amount?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kevin,
Great question. I don't know the whole answer, so I have forwarded your question to the environmental Econ professors Tim Haab and John Whitehead who write the blog http://www.env-econ.net/
I will post their reply hear once I get it!
-Mr. W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It sounds like a localized version of the Kyoto Protocol, which makes me a bit nervous because the Kyoto protocol didn't really work. But some environmentalists are saying the optimal amount of pollution is only economically speaking, environmentally speaking, it's still to high. So, whilst this may be great economically and environmentally, what happens when one day the optimal amount of pollution is reached and the planet is still building up pollution because pollution levels are still to high for the Earth to recover?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I first read about the buying and selling of rights to pollute in the textbook, I found the idea pretty weird. However, now that I know the benefits the society obtains from this system, it makes a lot of sense. All in all, I think this will help improve the environment as it discourages polluters to pollute, and money from the buying and selling of these rights can be used to further improve the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a member of Roots and Shoots, I feel like i need to say pollution is BADDDDD. However, I have to admit that these "rights to pollute" are a pretty good idea in our fast paced, technological world. If we can't get people to stop polluting, then we might as well charge them for polluting. This way, at least SOME people will stop or produce less. Also, it gives them further incentive to stop polluting if everyone is competing to see who would have the least costs. I really hope these rights to pollute become more popular and effective, not just in Europe, but everywhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doesn't the UN already set quotas on the carbon emission rates for all of the Kyoto Protocol signatories? This would work really well with the rates being sold to private sectors, because the nation must determine the rates that the government will consume in order to benefit the people, while the remainder can be bought by businesses or organizations. This way, the supply of the right to pollute the air will be severely reduced, driving up the price of the rights, and hence decreasing the demand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah the right to pollute sounds a bit contradictory to me. It makes sense the way they have it so that these "rights" can be sold from one to another based on how well you take care of your environment and it certainly has potential. The only thing needed to be worried about is honesty and corruption. Companies might just pay off people or mess with measurements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This idea of buying and selling pollution rights is a good start to actually tackling the issue of climate change and the problems it pose to the environment. It seems like the part of the world that seems to be doing something good for the world is Europe. After seeing the success that Europe has had with this program and how carbon emissions have been cut, the US should follow suit (if it hasn’t already, and I doubt there is such a thing there).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The market for pollution rights is parallel to the market for products that impose negative externalities on society, such as cigarettes. Completely banning either would not owrk (black markets would emerge) so governments might as well try to benefit as much as possible through taxes from the production of pollution and cigarettes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the rising prices per ton of pollution show a good sign towards environmental awareness. I can see this as pressure from the government for companies to spend the money in researching new technologies to cut down their carbon emissions. Do you guys think such a plan would work in China?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have heard about this idea of the "right to pollute" and it can help in many ways. If a firm feels like they are going to be producing a lot of pollution, they can buy more rights to pollute. In some cases, they can also buy some rights to pollute from other firms who do not pollute as much. By making a whole new market and using economic methods for this problem, it seems like it is going to work very well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The "right to pollute" is even being adopted in the states as methods to control pollution. For instance, large chicken farms in the US are now required to pay annual permits to raise their poultry because the bird waste pollutes the surroundings with excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Similar to the EU's view, US senators see buying the rights to pollute as a method of regulating companies which are producing goods at the expense of the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This concept of the "right to pollute" appears to be a viable solution towards restricting companies from emitting CO2 and other GHGs; however I have a few questions towards the "right to pollute" in individual nations. As mentioned before, one nation's pollution not only affects the nation producing it, but those it around it as well. Thus, my question is how can one nation, that adopts the pollution permit idea, fairly determine the amount of pollution it is allowed to produce, when neighboring nations do not adopt the "pollution permit" concept? For example, some nations in Europe have adopted the market for carbon emissions, but its pollution will still affect other nations and add to the total pollution produced. So if other nations, that do not adopt the concept, and continue increasing to produce, will it affect the supply of the nations that have the carbon emission market?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The notion of buying the right to pollute seems like it would work extremely well, but I would like to propose a scenario (though it may be rather extreme) that I'm not too sure how firms would economically respond to:
In this blog, the ability of environmental awareness groups to purchase these rights to pollute and hold them to lower the amount of pollution is an interesting idea. But what if all the environmental awareness groups somehow form an alliance and essentially buy all the permits to pollute and hold them off? What will happen to the economy?
'Course, the best response for the world is that because the firms that need to buy these permits can't since the environmentalist groups aren't even selling (consider the price of one permit to be infinite, if you may), and thus all the firms will commit to researching for methods to abate the amount of pollution emitted by their factories.
However, is that likely? Research for this sort of technology is extremely expensive, and many firms will likely have to shut down due to their inability to achieve any success with this sort of research.
Another possible outcome to me is that the firms simply secretly pollute. Many people question in earlier comments of how a government will be able to monitor the pollution of every plant, and because the government likely won't be able to the monitor every single plant, the plants will just secretly pollute.
Finally, the scariest potential outcome of the 3 in my opinion… Will the government, for the sake of keeping its economy up and running, begin to sell more permits to pollute exclusively to the firms?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the pollution permits are a great idea and should be able to control the amount of pollution released into the air. Also how they can make money by selling the permits when they don't need it anymore. The countries that need this method of pollution control are the developing countries since they pollute the most. If China had pollution permits and there was a fixed amount of permits, the air here would be much cleaner.
I too have the same questions as some of people that commented. How can you be 100% sure that the amount of pollution released into the air is the amount they say it is? isn't there like a way where they can alter the numbers? Also if the country is really desperate and they can not find another way to keep the economy up, would they resort to selling more pollution permits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I tip my hat to the European environmentalist economists who came up with this plan. The US should definetly adopt this solution for market control. I love this idea, although there are some things I'm not sure about. Like someone mentioned above, what if a company is unable to purchase pollution permits because all the environmentalist groups have bought them all and the company would have to close down. This would cost many people their jobs. Is it morally right to put hundreds, or maybe even thousands of employees out of their jobs and potentially ruining their lives?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is obviously on the major steps towards slowing down the issue of global warming and pollution in general. By making a market out of something that normally would be free, the EU has successfully (and will gradually) fix the problem of pollution. Now if only nations like China would adopt this sort of methods.. We wouldn't be drowning in an atmosphere of 170 API…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of the largest problems corrupting the modern world is the pollution problem. As we know, the pollution problem is causing the global warming and sudden deaths of many living organisms. However, as some people have already said, this new policy will obviously be a major step toward the slowing down of the global warming. Even though the price of carbon would rise, this policy will eventually protect the enviroment. Moreover, I agree with the idea that if China would adopt this policy like the EU, the global warming and other pollution problem will slow down dramatically.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This solution is simply brilliant! Just think. You have an incentive to be a non-polluter. But if for instance one year you screw up, you have to pay. Big time. The prices will probably be more than what the government will charge you, but at least you get to keep your business's nose clean. So next year you decide to clean up your act. In the long run it will allow for more people to get clean, and not put so much bad stuff into the world around them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is a little bit scary that firms are willing to pay $100 billion dollars just for the right to pollute the air that everyone breathes. But putting a price tag on pollution makes it somewhat fair. Now instead of polluting the environment endlessly, factories have to think about the costs placed on them from purchasing the pollution rights. Further causing less pollution would be the fact that all the money they are paying will be used to help lessen pollution. I also understand that if an environmental group did not like the pollution they themselves could purchase the pollution rights. However, the problem with this is that they will have to raise the money, whereas businesses are constantly making money from their products. Therefore, although this seems like a fair compromise polluting businesses can still have their way as long as they are making good profits. I mean how can an environmental agency genuinely compete with a multi-million dollar company? But then again pollution is still lessened through pollution rights, so overall they are a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This isn't the first time i heard about this, last year in environmental science we talked about the selling and buying the right to pollute, when I first heard about this last year, i was like wow people actually pay for it to pollute. Setting a price for the right to pollute is a great idea, this would cause
firms to reduce the amount of pollutants they release to the airs. These years global warming has become one of the biggest problems we are facing; I hope the selling and buying the right to pollute will slow down the speed of global warming. =)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i think that the system of pollution permits are helpful to reduce pollution and at the same time also somewhat push the economy. Environmentalist groups who buy these permits and kept them for the goods of the people are largely appreciated and more firms should start to support these groups as the issue of global warming continues to increase. I believe that if all other countries start to adopt this policy global warming rates could slow down by a lot and also help the economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Towards the end of our last Micro unit, which was on Market Failure, SAS AP Econ student asked a good question in a comment on my blog post “Reducing negative externalitites – the European market for carbon emissions” [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
The government could invest the revenue in finding greener and cheaper methods of production. Pollution permits are easier to use than strict government control because less enforcement is needed and the businesses can only cause so much pollution this way. Incentives encourage more environmentally friendly ways of production, which leads to less negative externalities. A market for pollution permits increases the incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Response to optional.xu: Yeah the right to pollute sounds a bit contradictory to me. It makes sense the way they have it so that these “rights” can be sold from one to another based on how well you take care of your environment and it certainly has potential. The only thing needed to be worried about is honesty and corruption. Companies might just pay off people or mess with measurements.
Honesty and corruption wouldn't be a problem because the businesses have incentives to lower their emissions. It is in their best interests to reduce emissions, because they'll have to pay less money that way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think this carbon emission permit is a great idea. Firstly, it helps government to generate income, which can be spent on offering subsidy to research and develop new ways to lower the carbon emission or it can simply be used on offering social welfare, such as health and education to the public. Secondly, it is also an effective way for the government to control the amount of CO2 emitted compare to strict government control as it creates additional ways for firms to generate revenue: the firm can research and develop new ways and technology to reduce the amount of carbon emitted, which saves its costs paid to the government. When the firm has reduced its emission to a very low level, it can then sell its permits to other firms, which generate additional income. Another firm which bought the additional permits will then think it is expensive to buy more permits and start to implement devices which lower the emission and it can now sell its permits to another firm. This creates a cycle of lowering the firm’s emission and hence this is a more effective way of setting a fixed quota of carbon emission for each firm by the government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To John.ecsla.f09
I think your response is great. However, you did not explain why this is a more effective way of reducing the carbon emission, rather than just a set government quota. (You kind of said firms have more incentives, but please explain more)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To John.ecsla.f09. I think your response is great. However, you did not explain why this is a more effective way of reducing the carbon emission, rather than just a set government quota. (You kind of said firms have more incentives, but please explain more)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
This is a good investment since this revenue could be used as beneficial to the environment and to create, as the text says, environmentally friendly ways of producing. Such as making the big companies that pollute so much and are so harmful for the environment change their habits to more friendly ways of producing towards the environment.
2) Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Because in the case of pollution permits, the government can just increase highly the price of these rights to pollute. People, private properties and companies will easily agree to depend on the government control of the pollution and the individual control of pollution.
3) What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
I think incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities such as the environment pollution and global warming are very important. It is important that we become aware of these issues and try to solve them. However, I think government controls create more incentives towards a world free of pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Julie.lin. I also think this way Julie. You are right about the fact that we should all apply this method to ease the problems with the environment. And we could benefit two element at once, as you said: the environment and the economy! ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Leyre.ecslb.f09
It was a nice point to explain in your second question response but not only the second question but also I think you needed to explain a little more in detail in all the questions in some points. Thanks for reminding me some key points that I can repond to those questions.
JiYoon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The revenue from the sale of these permits, granting large companies permission to pollute and so damage the environment, could in turn be used in a positive way to clean up the environment and also to promote the environmentally friendly. The companies promote the manufacturing for goods for recycling.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
- it is easier to implement because incase of pollution permits, the government can increase the price very highly to pollute. So, in many companies and people will state their agreements and also disagreements. Also, in the case of government control, they simply do not have the resources required to observe every single company to ensure they abide by environmental regulations. In this way pollution permits are much easier to enforce, because companies have to pay a fee is they choose to pollute – this revenue can then go to allieviating the pollution.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
I think incentives are necessary in order to achieve a reduction in negative externalities. establishing a market for pollution permits will be a much more effective way of reducing emissions contributing to global warming than direct government control, which cannot be relied upon to induce a great change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms? There are many excellent ways that a government can invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms. However, I think that the best way is that all of this money should be put into one pool in which funds solemnly the progress of alternative energies and funding initiatives which are making changes to the amounts of pollution released (in all forms: cars, factories, etc.). The amount of revenue that can be generated from these permits is immense and I genuinely think that the right way to allocate this money is to help improve the progression of the world in terms of keeping the planet green and clean.
2. # Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms? The market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control because there is less regulation needed with the permits, it is basically left up to the individual businesses to handle their permits and sell them off to each other. With strict government control there is a lot of government attention needed to assure the proper follow through of the regulations and thus it might not be carried out as effectively since it is harder for the government to properly evaluate which businesses are producing too much waste or are not following the rules, etc.
3. # What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls? The importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities is the motivation that they bring to the producers. With the market of pollution permits, there is motivation for the producers to increase their profit by coming up with more environmentally friendly production methods and then by being able to sell their permits. The personal profit comes from reducing the amount negative externalities that they produce; basically the permits are motives for them to branch out in alternative production methods. With the strict government control, the business are more likely to try and cheat or simply follow the bare minimum of what they need to do without actually putting any effort into it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Leyre.ecslb.f09
I am a little confused about your answer to #3…
Why do you think that government controls create more incentives? What about them do this?
Maybe I am not understanding your answer, but to me, a government control would create less incentive since the control are forced upon them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
There are any number of ways the government could invest the revenue they make from selling pollution permits, however I think if the money was earned by selling pollution rights, it should be spent in a way that helps the environment. For starters they could further this project and put it towards developing new greener technologies. Really any way that uses the money for public good and positive externalities and has to do with the environment would be fine with me.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Firms are always going to be polluting, if they have to buy the rights to do so, it's a lot easier for the government than if they were to have to stand their policing firms on exactly how much pollution they could put out. Plus this way earns revenue for the government.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
I think a market for pollution creates more of an incentive for pollution reduction but in a sneakier way.
For example: If your mother (in this analogy the government) tells you to clean your room and tries to force you to do it, you won't want to. If however, she just tells you it's optional to clean your room, but you will have to give up your allowance if you don't., then you still have the option of not doing it and paying the price. This makes it seem like it's your choice to clean and you did it because you wanted to, not because you were being told.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to jiyoon.ecslb.f09
When you say in your answer for number two that the government could make the price for the permits very high, do you think this is fair to smaller companies? They might not be producing as much pollution and they generate far less revenue overall in many cases, so do you think it fair that they pay the same price for a pollution permit as the larger chain corporations?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The most logical way of spending the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits would be to use it to improve the environment or to grant subsidies for more environmentally friendly ways of production. Money could also go to research about how to make production more efficient, i.e. so that less pollution occurs.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The permits are administratively cheaper and easier to control; as the regulatory agency needs to have no information regarding the firms’ costs- it simply has to issue the permits and arrange for their sale. Also, it would be incredibly time-consuming to test each firm individually on their individual amount of pollution.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are of high importance, because without them, firms would never try to achieve a reduction of negative externalities. Individuals, as well as firms, always act upon their own, personal benefit. Firms don’t have any (marginal private) benefit from reducing pollution and therefore they will not do so, as marginal social benefit is not considered in their thinking. So if there is an incentive, firms will have a “benefit” from polluting less, as they have the choice between polluting a lot and paying a lot or polluting less and paying less. I think whether a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls depends on the elasticity of the good sold. If the good is completely inelastic, then government controls do not bring an incentive at all, as the firms are likely to carry forward the cost of the tax imposed by the government to the consumer (and the consumer will continue buying it, seeing as the product is inelastic!). If the good is elastic however, government controls create more of an incentive, since firms will seriously have to start thinking about how to reduce pollution in order for the cost of tax to decrease, because they know that if the price of their product increases, demand will decrease by a large amount.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the points you made in #1 and #2 and I love your example of a mother telling you to clean your room! If I understood you right you are saying that both ways of reducing pollution have the same incentive, but market for pollution permits does it in a nicer way for the firms. Did I understand that right!? If that's the case, then I have to disagree, I don't think that they create the same incentive. I think – and wrote so in my blog- that decision of which resolution is creates more of an incentive depends on the elasticity of the product the company sells. If the company sells an inelastic good and the government imposes direct controls in the form of tax, then the company might as well pass on the extra cost to the consumer, (and seeing as the good is inelastic, consumers will keep on buying it) and vice versa with an elastic good. Would anybody dis/agree?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
* I meant to comment on stephanie.ecslb.f09
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
I think that in the most important place in which state should invest this revenue is in restore the damage that this negative externalist has produce (reforestation is a very good example)
2) Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
I am not totally agreed with this affirmation. In one hand it is easy to control because is not difficult to find the one that create the pollution and obligate to fallow the rules. In the other hand is difficult because is not easy to measure how much a company pollutes and to decided what be the quantity of permission that one company should have
3) What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Is important to incentive the companies to control the negative externalist because the market will not obligate them to do it (normally in the market only the private benefice/cost is taken anther consideration). I think that the market for pollution is the best form to incentive because it provokes that the law of supply and demand to affect the negatives externalist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Leyre.ecslb.f09
I think that to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms is not that easy. It had some problems such as how much permission to pollute you gave, how you measure the quantity of pollution that a company creates (is this is difficult to ensure that the companies don’t make traps such as contaminate during the night, when any one is looking)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with what everyone has said regarding the ways that a governmet could or should invest the revenue that they receive by selling pollution permits. Boiled down, I believe that this answer comes in two main parts; first, the development of technology which does not create as much pollution as the current technology, and second, in moving to repair the damage already inflicted on the environment due to polluting firms.
In my opinion, a market for pollution permits is easier to implement than a strict government control because there is a more tangible cost to the firms if they do not comply. I love Stephanie's analogy of cleaning your room, and I think it applies here perfectly. Also, and this might just be me, but I think it's simply more enjoyable to participate in a market for pollution permits than to submit to a strict government. In a way it's more of a game – a game of wits and resourcefulness.
A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive to reduce pollution emissions than direct government controls if (and that's a rather big if) the supply of pollution permits is limited. If there is a massive supply of pollution permits, then the companies are able to purchase them for a relatively low price, and thus they are able to continue polluting at the same level, (or possibly even higher, due to reduced guilt). On the other hand, if the number of pollution permits available is limited, then the polluting firms are not able to afford the pollution permits required to continue at their previous level of pollution, and they will thus reduce their emissions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Kerstin.ecslb.f09,
I agree whole heartedly with your idea of elastic/inelastic goods.
Also worth mentioning, is the fact that some companies, regardless of the elasticity of their product, produce more pollution than others. This difference in pollution could be the tipping point for success of certain companies. If the good a firm sells is inelastic, the pollution permits could actually end up being almost a good thing for the firm, because the cost would be placed on the consumers due to the inelasticity of the good. Visa versa, for an elastic good, the pollution permits could send a company into bankruptcy…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government could invest that money in developing “green” technologies.
The market for pollution permits doesn’t cut into profits as much, nor does it require nearly as much government involvement.
An incentive encourages companies to pollute less, thus helping the environment. A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive, as companies can go under their limits and sell the remaining permits for a profit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
pedro.ecsla.f09:
Yes, reforestation is another area where the government should spend that money. However, the permits are definitely easier to control. And the government will do anything to ease their workload…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another advantage to pollution permits is that the government then can invest the revenue they earn from the sale of such permits in a variety of ways. Sticking to the theme of pollution and the environment, the revenue could be put forth in other pollution reducing programs or charities. Or it could go to research in various environmental fields. The government could devote this revenue entirely to these kinds of fields, or it could be divided and incorporated to any of the government’s spending areas. The money could go a long way in helping any community due to its large volume, since it is a 100 billion dollar market.
Implementing this market for pollution permits is easier that strict control of pollution because strict control requires a “complex bureaucracy to administer, monitor, execute and enforce”. It would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for the government to determine the appropriate level of tax on polluters, determine the exact level of externalized costs placed on the society, as well as check up on each producer in the entire economy.
A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive to reduce emissions, rather than direct government control, because with the market there are choices for the firm to make. The firms do not have to accept the extra taxes placed on them by government, they can buy more permits, or buy ‘greener’ machines and reduce their pollution from the process. This choice, which the companies are free to make, provides an extra incentive in that the company can even make a revenue by selling their permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding Jessica Chiang's comment,
I agree. Of course pollution is still dangerous and the only real solution is ceasing all together, creating this market for pollution permits is a real step in the right direction. Not only does it stimulate the economy by generating another market for which the revenue can be allocated to whatever the government needs most of, but also it actively reduces pollution that is created by large companies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms in green technology research or converting some technologies to greener technologies. A market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control because the firms will keep the other firms in check. Firms like having control of the things they do, and the permits allow them to have control. If the permits don’t work, the government would have to be involved and the firms would lose control. The importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities is to keep companies reducing their negative outputs. Without incentives, companies will not reduce their negative outputs because they have no reason to. A market for pollution permits would create about the same amount of an incentive to reduce emissions as direct government controls because they have to pay to pollute, and with government control, they would most likely have to do the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding michael.escla.f09's comment, I definitely agree that the government could use the money for green technology research and implementation. I think it somewhat encourages companies to pollute less, but it also is not 100% effective. It does make it easier for the government because they don't have to be as involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The most important thing the government should do with that money is to restore the damage caused. Another way could be to provide subsides so the firms can find more suitable to purify instead of pollute.
2) Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The pollution permits are cheaper and easier to control than a strict government control. Having this control would consume a lot of time and labor work to assure that nobody is breaking the law. And, moreover, it is not easy to measure how much a firm pollutes. This control would need a lot of infrastructure and labor to be effective.
3) What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
If companies do not receive an incentive when they reduce the negative externalities, they would not do it, this is because these externalities do not affect to the market and in a marginal analysis: there is no benefit and a big cost in reducing these negative externalities. Markets for pollution permits is the best way to incentive the firms because it affects on the law of supply and demand of the product.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Celine.ecslb.f09,
I do not think that the best to invest that money from the pollution permits is to make a pool for the progress of alternative energies because that it is not an immediate incentive for the firms and; further more, how can these alternative energy goods be distributed in proportion of what the firms have paid? However, if you give subsides to develop alternative energy goods, you are ‘making them invest on these goods’ and if the subsides is good enough and they will probable switch to alternative energy goods such as cars, factories, etc. which will help the environment as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In response to the question about why this system would be easier to implement than interventionist methods, I cannot see how it would be any easier. It is not correct, to my understanding, to define the right to pollute market as not being an interventionist measure. The government is still defining how much pollution can be produced over a given time span, and forcing firms to buy the right to a portion of that amount. The system would still require a new agency to manage the trade. An environmental study would be given the monumental task of deciding how much pollution is allowable, which is a bigger task than it first seems to be. Also, there is still the matter of enforcement. Just because the system is based on the free market does not mean there won't be firms trying to beat the system. The system would still require the same resources devoted to enforcement as would any of the other measures. It is for these reasons I reject the hypothesis that it would be easier to implement this system than any other system aimed at reducing pollution.
Assuming the implementation of this system is successful, the revenue gained could be used to finance research into technologies aimed at reducing pollution. Reforestation and other environmental cleanups would be key as well.
As to the question of incentives. It is important for there to be incentives put in place for reducing pollution. A rational firm will only do what will turn a profit, and if there is nothing to be gained from reducing pollution, the rational decision would be to make no changes. This system would provide incentives for pollution reduction only if the price of the shares of the pollution quota were high enough. If this was the case, it would be less expensive to reduce pollution than it would be to simply buy the shares.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to kerstin.ecslb.f09,
Wouldn't the government still have to measure each firm's pollution to make sure they are not polluting more than they have bought permits for? It seems many of the people on this forum are forgetting that even a free market has rules that have to be enforced. Who would foot the bill for the enforcement of this system?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The government could invest the money they make into research for improving technologies. For example in machines that are less poluting than the ones used currently.
2. It is easier to implement pollution permits, as it uses the concept of a market. And it would be very hard to check if companies stick to the regulation. Firsty it would need a lot more people to check and companies could still cheat like polluting at night.
3. There are social benefits of reducing negative externalities, as people health is getting less damaged mostly, for example frome pollution. I think that it is better for the government to make a maret polution permits than putting strict controls because the government can make a profit and if it is really strict it is more likely that people cheat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to victor.ecsla.f09
For question three you do not really talk about the importance of incentives. But for questions one and two this could be an option of how to use money and these pollution permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Some of the ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms would be to reduce taxes. As the government would be gaining large revenue due to these permits, they will not need to tax the general public as much. Another option would be for governments to put the money towards public goods and/or merit goods such as infrastructure and health care. The best option would be a combination of the two.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because it saves the government time and effort it does not need to spend on quantifying the value of many social external costs. It allows governments to create a standard which all companies which pollute must pay for and allows the government to collect revenue at the same time.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are very important in achieving reduction of negative externalities because companies need a reason to invest in environmentally friendly equipment. Without an incentive, companies will see no reason to spend so much money and will continue to do what they do at the same rate. The market for pollution permits can create more incentive to reduce emissions if the price of the permits is high enough, too low a price and firms will continue to find it cheaper to buy permits and implement new material.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
response to Victor.ecsla.f09
Would firms really deserve to be subsidized if they force the government to create permits for them to stop? As important as it may seem to reimburse the firms, the citizens need to come first. Using that revenue to help the civilians will cause them to be happier, and when civilians are happier, they have more time to look into things. Just like during the Enlightenment, it allows the general public to gain new information and gain new and sometimes more economically sound insight into issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Revenue could be used for several different purposes. It would probably be most fitting; however, if the money was invested in researching and creating innovative “green” technology that would decrease pollution and protect the environment. “…billions can earned in revenue for the government, which in theory could be used to subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.”
__
2) Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Because a negative externality such as pollution has no market, firms do not feel obligated to protecting the environment. No matter how strict the government becomes, it won’t really have a lasting nor very effective impact on how firms behave because interventionist approaches such as excise taxes, fines, bans, and quotas “require a complex bureaucracy to administer, monitor, execute and enforce.” However, if a market for pollution permits was implemented, these negative externalities would now become part of the private cost since it now has its own market. Firms would have to pay more if they pollute, thus deterring them from doing so. There’s nothing that firms hate more than losing money and with such a market in place the pollution issue will be resolved. A market for pollution permits will in turn help keep the environment cleaner, increasing social benefit. This would also be less of a hassle for the government.
__
3) What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
A market for pollution creates more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls. A market would keep the firms in check and would work more efficiently than the government would. A central authority can only do so much to monitor what firms do. Markets make the job much simpler and a lot easier. “At high prices, firms will either stop polluting or pollute less by acquiring pollution-abatement equipment, which is more attractive when the rights are more expensive. If the ‘cost of pollution’ is cheap, then firms will choose to buy permits rather than acquiring expensive abatement equipment or upgrading to ‘greener’ technology.” In other words, no matter what the situation is, firms will be less inclined to pollute because of the private cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John great answer!
It's concise yet very detailed and completely true. The government will be helped as well as the environment. And, firms will be forced to pollute less without as much regulation
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Victor that is an interesting alternative.
I never thought about subsidies. However, the point is for the government to make money while at the same time, reducing pollution, hence the market for pollution permits. It kills two birds with one stone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
1. The government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution into promoting and advancing the use of 'greener' technology. By using this system, not only would the government be indirectly causing the promotion of more carbon-efficient technologies, but they could also directly effect it by investing into research.
2. A market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of pollution because it is nearly impossible to set a firm tax on something like pollution that is so hard to regulate. Direct government intervention will only anger companies and probably not be effective enough to prevent them from not polluting. On the other hand, the market for pollution permits allows companies to pollute, but only when absolutely necessary, since they will not want to waste money buying permits if they do not abosolutely need it.
3. The reduction of negative externalities will lead to incentives for the government and the companies. This indirectly forces these firms to begin investing in more carbon-efficient technology, which in the long term will be more cost effective for them, because they will not need to continue buying pollution permits. On the other side, the government is making money off of helping these firms become 'greener'.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@victor
I like the idea of subsidies, however, the market for pollution permits will probably still be more efficient in the long run. With subsidies, there is some incentive for firms to begin using newer, pollution-free technology, however the pollution permits bring the same incentives while the government makes money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
2) the idea of creating a market is easier to implement because it will encourage firms to deal with their externalities in an economic fashion. meaning they will be cooperative in research (lowering their own costs or selling their permits).
Additionally, it means the governemnt will be receiving revenue from the committing companies rather than spending on regulations and court cases. This money can be better spent on other environmental concerns such as investing in recycling programs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. A good use of the revenues earned from the sale of pollution permits would be too invest it into the environment, by maybe using more environmentally friendly technology; or by subsidizing firms that provide merit goods that promote a greener environment.
2. A market is easier to implement than strict government control because the firms are going to respond better the market approach as the firms will have the incentive to lower their costs and only pollute when necessary. This will also be beneficial to the government as they will gain the revenues from the pollution permits.
3. Incentives are important to achieve a reduction of negative externalities. A market for pollution permits is more effective than government controls because markets create more incentives. When there are high prices, firms will reduce their amount of production or invest in environmentally friendly equipment. However, if the permits are cheap to them, then the firm will buy permits which limits their emissions. Either way firms will pollute less based on their private costs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Perhaps the most logical way for governments to invest this revenue is in research and development for pollution prevention and mitigation. That way, the money earned from companies who pollute goes towards stopping polluition.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It reduces the cost to companies, as it creates a market where firms can buy and sell. This means that "green" companies can make more profits. Also, conservation groups can buy permits and hold them. This would increase the cost of the permits, allowing these groups to have a real effect on the issue. Also, the money earned by the government from the sale of the permits can go towards pollution mitigation efforts.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Firms are profit-centered. With a financial incentive, firms have a reason to reduce the externality. Without the incentive, firms will be unable to benefit in any way from reducing pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mhairi,
Wouldn't direct government controls increase costs as well? If a firm faces threat of legal action if they fail to meet the requirements, then that would be an incentive for them to decrease pollution. Yet even with this in mind, I would consider the market system to be much more effective. It removes the opportunity for bureaucratic corruption and gives firms financial incentives rather than straight restrictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. They could invest this revenue first and foremost in reducing their own burgeoning national debt if they are one of the many countries who have this issue. Aside from this, they could reinvest such money into other entities such as schools, infrastructure, or other public works projects. If they really wanted to be serious about stopping pollution, they could funnel the money to not-for-profit environmental organizations in the form of subsidies with the stipulation that the money from the government be used at a later date to purchase these pollution permits from companies that need to earn some extra revenue themselves.
2. The implementation of pollution permits requires the creation of a commission, probably headed by the Energy Department of the nation undertaking the measure, to smartly allocate these permits and control prices. Businesses still have the freedom to make their decisions on the actions they want to take (although the system should be designed to where they will be encourage to pollute less). Under direct government control this possibility is not present. It chokes businesses who may not be able to make the quick and drastic shift necessary, closing many firms and creating a skyrocketing unemployment rate. This would be more detrimental to the overall economy.
3. Many times firms will only act if it is in their best economic interests to act, or the law requires them to meet some obligation. Therefore, incentives to take a particular course of action will push businesses in the right direction without taking complete control over their balance sheets and dictating policy to them. A market for pollution permits creates less incentive than direct government controls, however, one must be realistic with the options available. Firms come in many shapes and sizes. Overarching controls do nothing but hurt the businesses and may lead to mass casualties, especially in such a fragile economic era.
Trevor Tezel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government could invest the proceeds from the sale of pollution permits to firms in developing more sustainable/environmentally friendly machinery. If this was successful, it would provide a greater incentive for firms to upgrade their technology rather than pay for pollution permits, and would ultimately result in a decrease in toxic output.
The market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because of two reasons: first, it gives firms an incentive to take steps to improving environmental sustainability; this is because it will be cheaper to invest in new technology rather than buy the permits, and because they can sell unwanted permits for profit. Second, the creation of a market for pollution permits mean that demand and supply effectively control toxic waste output, thus requiring a lot less input in terms of time and money for the government. It also reduces the risk of firms engaging in illegal practices to circumvent strict legislation, such as dumping.
Without incentives, firms have no reason to reduce their negative externalities because they themselves are not harmed, at least not in a direct, measurable sense, by generating pollution. This is similar to the problem of the 'Tragedy of the Commons'. Giving them incentives, which in this case are the profits that can be earned by selling extra permits, gives them a tangible value for changing their actions, and thus encourages them to invest in environmentally friendly technologies. The reason why this works is that humans are selfish beings and interested only in that which can benefit themselves directly; the provision of incentives to promote an environmental issue is therefore much better than legislation without any sort of motive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With regards to your first suggestion, that governments could reduce their national debt, I think that this would be a good idea for America, as it is one of the world's largest producers of pollution. It also refuses to sign anti-pollution legislature and can do so because of its size and economic power. Actually, I think that Obama has just started to introduce taxes on pollutants, although it remains to be seen whether this will develop into a pollutants market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Revenue could be used for several different purposes. It would probably be most fitting; however, if the money was invested in researching and creating innovative “green” technology that would decrease pollution and protect the environment. “…billions can earned in revenue for the government, which in theory could be used to subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.”
The implementation of pollution permits requires the creation of a commission, probably headed by the Energy Department of the nation undertaking the measure, to smartly allocate these permits and control prices. Businesses still have the freedom to make their decisions on the actions they want to take (although the system should be designed to where they will be encourage to pollute less). Under direct government control this possibility is not present. It chokes businesses who may not be able to make the quick and drastic shift necessary, closing many firms and creating a skyrocketing unemployment rate. This would be more detrimental to the overall economy.
A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive to reduce emissions, rather than direct government control, because with the market there are choices for the firm to make. The firms do not have to accept the extra taxes placed on them by government, they can buy more permits, or buy ‘greener’ machines and reduce their pollution from the process. This choice, which the companies are free to make, provides an extra incentive in that the company can even make a revenue by selling their permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to leyre,
leyre, your answer is very good and well elaborated, although you could use more key point in the second answer.
laura
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Meiling,
Very good post. You seem to have a pretty impressive grasp on the issue. There is one thing that struck me as interesting. You mention how governments could reinvest the funds from this into “sustainable/environmentally friendly machinery.” Would this be investment directly into the private sector, or in government manufacturing procedures? I think it is a very plausible and helpful prospect that should seriously be considered. There are many options, though, and I think that any extra revenue earned must be dealt with in a frugal and wise manner.
Trevor Tezel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The government could use the revenue gained from the sale of pollution permits to invest in research and development of new technologies to help eliminate the need to pollute in the first place.
2. A market for pollution permits is easier to implement because there is no need for a large bureaucratic control office to administer and insure efficacy of the government action. The government simply administers the permits, takes in the revenue, and allows the market to handle the rest.
3. The importance of incentives in achieving the reduction of negative externalities is that the producer is not interested in reducing the externality because they do not affect him directly, thus there must be some sort of incentive to influence the firm to stop polluting. A market for pollution permits gives the firms a greater incentive than direct government controls because the firm can at least make a profit off of the permits by reducing emissions and selling their permits.
-Dennis-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Trevor,
I almost wrote what you did for the third question, that direct government control provided greater incentive, but I wasn't sure whether being forced into something counts as incentive, so I went with the pollution permits because I know that they provide the firms with an incentive. If you know what you're talking about, it would be cool if you could explain to me just how direct government controls are actually an incentive, I'm not sure. Anyhow, thanks, and good response.
-Dennis-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• Governments could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms that were researching new “green” energy techniques that might one day help industries to not hurt the environment as they produce.
• The market for pollution permits is easier to implement that strict government controls because the permits are universal. Also, this does not require the establishment of a whole new bureaucracy, but rather builds on the power of existing firms.
• It is important to create incentives surrounding negative externalities as they tend to be overproduced. This is because they harm society, not private businesses, and so businesses are unlikely to work to avoid them as they will not offer enough gain.
• A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive for reducing emissions as firms may actually make a profit by selling unused permits.
Chamonix
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Trevor,
Excellent response!
I disagree on one point. I think that pollution permits might give more incentive to cut down on pollution than government limits. Legislation could cause MORE pollution being halted–say, in a full ban. However, government limits basically send the message "Don't pollute or we shut you down." Permits give the message "Don't pollute or we shut you down–but if you're good you can make a profit." I think of it in terms of psychology. permits are both negative reinforcement (punishment for bad behavior) and positive reinforcement (rewards for good behavior).
Thanks for the great post!
Chamonix
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.) Governments could invest the revenue earned from the sales of pollution permits in, for example, developing new ways of alternative energy (research and development). This would not only encourage individual firms to pollute less, it would also encourage them to produce cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy for the future.
2.) Pollution permits would be easier to implement than strict government controls. The permits would not affect firms as negatively as strict government controls would. The reason behind this statement is that government controls would take away freedom from individual businesses, whereas permits would retain individual rights. As a result, business owners would probably be much more content with receiving permits than they would be with receiving government controls.
3.) For many firms, the most important incentive is profit. As a result, since reducing pollution emissions does not necessarily give an additional profit, it is undesirable to individual firms. Negative externalities are just what they sound like – negative for people and the general wellbeing of the society. For this reason, since companies will not necessarily work by themselves to eliminate negative externalities, they need an incentive to do so. A market for pollution permits creates a greater incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls do. This is because firms can still make a profit through selling their permits, whereas government control would not yield a profit.
- Catherine
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Mattea,
In your third point, you talk about how firms must have a financial incentive to reduce their emissions. I definitely agree with you here. For the first question, you point out that the revenue from permits may be used to encourage firms to upgrade technology. I think your first and third points go hand in hand. If technology was upgraded because of the revenue from permits, it would probably be more efficient/cheaper to operate than the old machinery. Therefore, this, in itself, could give firms the incentive to reduce their pollution. If operation costs were cheaper, everyone would benefit – society and individual firms.
- Catherine
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits in green energy. Money could be allocated to fund wind, solar, and hydro-electricity energy projects. The government could also invest the revenue in making infrastructure "greener" and in instituting more broad based recycling reforms.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because the government doesn't have to perform the difficult task of keeping track of the pollution that the firms produce and making sure that they adhere to the rules set in place. The market based solution means that all that the government would have to keep track of was the number of permits on the market and the average price to make sure that the system was functioning properly. Market forces would take care of the rest.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are important in achieving the reduction of negative externalities because they are the way to get firms to cooperate. The market for pollution permits creates a greater incentive to reduce emissions than government control, because not only do firms have to take into account the cost of permits when they calculate their average costs, but the reduction of pollution provides firms with a a way to generate extra revenue by selling unneeded permits.
-Issa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello Catherine,
I like your explanation of the incentives. You really made the reason why a market for pollution permits would be more desirable for firms than direct government intervention.The negative externalites of the firms actions don't directly affect the firms and therefore do not factor into the firms' costs. The externalites affect others. By using the market based solution of pollution permits, the government is forcing the firms to consider the externalities when they consider their costs and are thus causing them to internalize the externalities. That is way more effective than direct government intervention ever could be because it causes the firms to rethink their actions and not just try to "trick the system"
-Issa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) A government could invest the revenue into research into new machines that don’t produce as much pollution so the need for pollution permits would decrease as well. They could also invest in fixing what the damage that pollution has done so far, like cleaning polluted waters, or helping to reforest deforestated areas.
2) A market for pollution permits is easier to implement because it gives firms incentive to produce less pollution, since buying the pollution permits will cost a lot more than just keeping their toxic emissions low. It also creates profit for the government who can then invest in pollution mitigation.
3)I think incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities such as the environment pollution and global warming are very important. It is important that we become aware of these issues and try to solve them. However, I think government controls create more incentives towards a world free of pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Issa,
I think that your point about incentive decreasing negative externalities is correct and makes sense. The marke for pollution permits does increase the need to create less emissions because then the firms would have to spend money on buying permits. Lowering emissions has a lower cost in the long run than constantly buying permission permits.
Sara
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
I believe it is through improving the alternative ways of energy, which do not pollute the environment through their production; this could be through building more wind farms and selling them at lower prices, or improving the technology or solar panels.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits only needs to create the permits and sell them in the open market. However, strict government control needs to measure precisely how much pollution is being made, look at the specific cost of pollution to society, calculate the necessary taxes or fines, so that they are not too high or too low, and needs to have the power to enforce the new laws.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls? What firms only care about are profits; if they do not see any interest, or profit, in reducing their pollution, they just will not; however, if reducing the pollution actually brings them profit, they will indeed consider doing so. Direct government control does not give any incentive: it is only a pathetic threat which is rarely enforced. However, the market for pollution rights indeed gives firms the possibility of increasing their revenues, since, after investing in ‘green’ ways of producing, they can earn profits through the unnecessary permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leyre
When you said to use the money to ‘change their habits to more friendly ways of producing towards the environment,’ the first thing that came to my mind was bribing. Do you intend to bribe the polluters? I do not think that is a very good idea. You could instead make it a bit more subtle and give rewards to those who pollute the least… Or something of the sort which looks less illegal… And I still wonder how can strict government controls provide more incentives than the market for pollution rights… Did you mean that these controls make firms get scared, and thus an incentive to reduce pollution… Yes, that could be…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. It is very interesting how this whole marketing pollution rights works. In this way he “commons” in the tragedy of the commons becomes privatized, and companies are forced to take responsibility for their pollution which is being dumped into the atmosphere.
2. A market is easier to implement than strict government control because the firms are going to respond better the market approach as the firms will have the incentive to lower their costs and only pollute when necessary. This will also be beneficial to the government as they will gain the revenues from the pollution permits.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
If companies do not receive an incentive when they reduce the negative externalities, they would not do it, this is because these externalities do not affect to the market and in a marginal analysis: there is no benefit and a big cost in reducing these negative externalities. Markets for pollution permits is the best way to incentive the firms because it affects on the law of supply and demand of the product.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
meiling,
i defently agree with your answer; i had thought about answering similarly for question 3; although i think you should use more examples.
karen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
I think revenue could be used to improve a countries infrastructure, and primarily the development of alternative ways of energy, or fund science research into new forms of energy. Also possibly give benefits to people who use Green energy, or implement a system where lower taxes are given to people who use more environmentally friendly energy.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Pollution permits are alot better, as they but a immediate limit on how much pollution is allowed, where as putting tax on the amount of pollution produced doesn't enforce the policy of trying to reduce carbon emissions. Pollution permits are alot more efficient to implement where as calculating how much pollution is produced and then tax and work out all the costs.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities?
Incentives could encourage large emitting factories to switch over, they would be more likely to do so if it gave them a profit of course. As Marcelo said setting up a direct government control does not give them any incentive to switch, and is just a mere threat. In general people will do things if they like the benefits they are given, or when told to do something they are less likely to do it as there might not be as much gain out of it. Once again the us humans work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) The government can gain a a higher profit for the development of machines that reduce pollution and also invest in programs and other things to prevent and fix the damage of pollution to the environment.
2) A market for pollution allows less pollution, since these have high prices and creates a revenue for the government.
3) The goal of reducing pollution is essential for the best of the environment and to maintain resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leyre,
I don't really understand about ‘change their habits to more friendly ways of producing towards the environment,’ but the main purpose if all this is to reduce the pollution and as Marcelo said bribing is not the solution, the government and the environment will be harmed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
There are a whole heap of things the government can use the revenue gained from the sale of pollution rights to permits. First off, the government can invest some of this revenue into ensuring that the polluters in the community indeed abide to their pollution emission limits (calculated form the amount of permits they have), and do not exceed them. Although the market for tradeable pollution rights may be administratively cheap and easy to implement, if there is no abidance to the regulations of the use of pollution permits, then the entire objective of giving the polluters the incentive to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by increasing their costs of production would not be as effective as desired. Secondly, this source of revenue may be beneficially invested by the government in subsidies for the firms which produce pollution abatement technologies, thus decreasing their price in comparison to those of the permits. This will then persuade the firms to acquire the pollution abatement equipment and to operate it, therefore reducing their emissions with the objective of decreasing their costs of production and increasing their revenue by selling their unneeded pollution permits. In short, this investment would surely provide firms with more of an enticement to reduce their pollution emissions. Moreover, this pollution abatement technology, ‘green energies’ and ‘green technologies’ will not efficiently develop and enhance if not for fiscal government aid, instigating the spur to do so. Finally, the government may further implement the use of green, renewable technologies (deemed more expensive in the short term) in its society, also reducing its overall use of exhaustible non-renewable sources of energy, as well as pollution emissions.
• Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Strict government control of the pollution of individual firms can be quite difficult as well as costly for the government. Of course the implementation of this type of control comes at an opportunity cost. Investment in the reduction of pollution emissions through regulation will be at the cost of less government investment in other important sectors in society. This is explained by the fact that the policing of regulations can present great difficulties as some firms may attempt to circumvent the controls (an example would be by polluting during the night), implying that a great number of inspectors must be employed so as to ensure compliance to the laws and regulations. Other than this, if a uniform limit of emissions is applied to all firms, once the emission targets are achieved, there would be no further incentive for these firms to continue to abate their pollution emissions. This would also be the case if a tax on extra pollution emissions was put in place by the government. Lastly, one of the problems faced in strict government control of the pollution of individual firms is regulatory capture where the firms may have the ability to manipulate the regulatory body to act in their private interests as opposed to the interests of interest of society as a whole.
Market pollution permits on the other hand seem to be more effective due to several factors. First-off they’re a market-based solution to the problem of the negative externalities engendered by pollution, and operate through the price system, meaning that firms are given profit incentive where they can sell their spare permits and find the cheapest possible ways to abate their pollution levels. Other than this, from the government’s point of view, the issue of the market for pollution permits is administratively cheaper and much simpler to implement than strict government control policies: all the government has to do is simply issue the permits and arrange their sale. Lastly, consumers may also be able to benefit from the extra profits made by producers from selling their spare pollution permits since this could be passed on to them in the form of lower prices.
• What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
If the producers or generators of the negative externalities are not given the incentive to reduce the market failure that they cause, then they will not make the extra effort to do so. Note that individuals rationally opt to maximize their utility, most of the time, regardless of the spill over costs, and even the benefits that this may have on society. This is what causes market failure to begin with. The ‘commons’ are not privatised and so all will overexploit and take advantage of them. In the case of strict government control, polluting forms are not given the incentive to abate their pollution emissions since it does not privately benefit them in any way, and they therefore try to circumvent these controls and manipulate the regulatory body in their favour. On the other hand, the market for pollution permits provides them with, as mentioned above, a profit incentive: they can sell their surplus permits, thus gaining a source of revenue, and find cheaper ways than the permits to reduce their pollution emissions, and therefore production costs. The benefit that firms gain from these two possibilities provides them with an inducement to effectively reduce pollution emissions, in their private favour. They make more money (profit). The only predicament encountered with the issue of pollution permits is that this incentive to pollute less through a market-based system can be offset by the polluting firms charging consumers with higher prices for their product. Depending on the elasticity of the product, especially in a case where the product itself is inelastic, demand will only be decreased by a proportionally larger raise in price, therefore increasing the firm’s revenue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment to optional.xu:
I completely agree with when you say that there are great ways in which the market for pollution permits may succumb to corruption and dishonesty. However, if we compare the likeliness of this happening under strict government control, and in a market for pollution permits, I would think that the market, providing more profit incentive, would be least likely to become as corrupted as a strict government controlled policy for pollution emission abatement which does not provide any profit incentive to reduce pollution. Moreover, the revenue gained by the government from issuing and selling these permits can be invested into maintaining a system for market pollution permits ensuring the compliance to the regulations of such a system by the firms in question, therefore attempting to diminish any trace of possible corruption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
1)The revenue from the sale of pollution rights could be used to improve the environment or subsidies more environmentally friendly methods of production.
2) approaches to control pollution level of individual firms and producers requires complex bureaucracy to administer execute and enforce, government is not always able to determine the amount of external costs produced by polluters actions so the tax or fine imposed on the polluter may not correspond to the level of damage that he causes to environment, besides cost of checking the co2 emissions on a regular bases is very high, compared to this the right to pollute permits are much easier to operate because they are based on the market mechanism. the supply of the permits is infinity inelastic as its fully controlled by the government and demand is downwards sloping so the higher demand for the permits, the higher market price. the higher the market price the higher are the average costs for pollution for individual firms so they may find it cheaper to install cleaner methods of production than continue buying permits. Also the firms can sell the permits to each other as they become " greener" and may no longer need the permits thus it forms secondary market for trading of the permits. also the environment conservation groups can participate in the trading of the permits just by buying and holding them thus reducing the supply available to the firms and increasing market price.
3) An incentive which may cause firms to reduce pollution and negative externality of production are profit related, the firm always performs the cost-benefit analysis and in deciding how to produce picks a cheaper method of production. the price of pollution permits is always compared with alternative greener methods of doing business and these calculations is done by the firm itself which knows exactly the level of its pollution on the other hand direct government control must be performed by the government itself the government perform determine the level of pollution of every fir and the cost of negative affects on the society which is very difficult also direct control by the government is interpreted by the firms like restriction, punishment and thus they are always are incentive to avoid it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government has a couple options. It could give subsidies to companies to encourage them to input green technology that could clean up the pollution or they could give them rewards for producing a certain amount of pollution under a set limit. The government could also buy up some pollution permits and hold them in order to drive up the price for the remaining pollution permits so that companies continue to sell off their permits. If the government continues to increase the price to pollute companies will not stop cleaning up their pollution.
2) Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
With pollution permits, firms drive up the price to pollute themselves and can regulate themselves better because they have incentives to reduce pollution, which is to make money by selling their permits. Governments cannot go out and measure how much each firm is polluting individually so by setting up a market, the companies monitor each other.
3) What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are very important for reducing negative externalities. A lot of firms would not normally care about the negative externalities they are causing because there is no loss in putting pollution in the air and the only gain is that they are not spending money to clean the pollution. Incentives give companies a reason to clean up their pollution: more revenue. A market for pollution permits does create more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls because with a market, companies can make money by being cleaner polluters. Since it is a choice to not pollute as much in a market, if they clean up their pollution before their competitor chooses to stop polluting they may make more money than their competitor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Re: Sondos2
You bring up an interesting point that firms may hike up their prices, which could cause problems for consumers but the pollution permits can also make companies' production costs lower and give them an opportunity to sell their products even cheaper than another company. So while I understand your point that companies can raise prices to pay for their pollution – and surely some will – most companies would take that opportunity to have even lower prices and probably attract more consumers.
Good point though and I see how that could be a problem.
Noah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.What are some ways a government could invest the revenue from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could invest the revenue in research to find new technologies or methods as the use of wind or solar power to minimize the production of pollution. Moreover, the government could also held some permits so that when firms start producing too much pollution it can increase the price of the permits making the firm produce less pollution.
2.Why is the market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is easier to implement because the amount of pollution released in the air by a firm is very difficult to quantify and therefore the government cannot really implement a right penalty for the firms that pollute. Moreover, implementing penalties would require the intervention of complex bureaucracy and monitors that would be an extra cost both for the government and the firms.
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than government controls?
Incentives are very important in reducing negative externalities since they encourage firms to reduce or increase the production of a certain product that may be the cause of a negative externality to society. In the case of pollution for example, the new market system works as an incentive because firms want to reduce the production of their own pollution selling the permits to other firms, therefore raising their revenue. By doing this they reduce the emission of pollution in the air. Moreover, if conservation groups or individuals buy the permits and held them, they can increase the price of them, incentivizing firms even more to produce less pollution or to buy new technologies to reduce the impact that pollution have on the environment. On the contrary, government controls would still be an incentive to reduce the production of pollution because it would control firms and tax the ones that would produce more, increasing their costs and therefore incentivize them to produce less pollution; however, the new market strategy is still more effective because firms are more motivated in reducing the quantity of pollution because there is more competition between them and because they have also the possibility of increasing their revenues by selling their permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) There are many ways, depending on what the government wants to obtain. They can be invested on the increase of policemen, or highways, etc. But, I suppose that if the main goal is to decrease pollution, government will invest them giving subsidies to companies which labor is the research of technologies that reduces the pollution, or companies that produces renewable energy, so it is easier for them to expand the company at the market of energies, taking out companies which production involves pollution.
2) Because if the government decides to reduce pollution throw taxes would have to find the equilibrium between the social costs and the private cost, so the costs done by the private company to the population are “paid” and this equilibrium, or, at other words, the amount of the payment, is too difficult to determine.
Instead if the government creates a market for pollution each company will pay for the pollution it generates. And will, of course because companies are always looking the way of reducing their costs, look the way of reducing their emissions in order to reduce their costs and, if possible, increase their benefits throw the sale of their pollution rights.
3) The role of incentives at this goal is very clear. Individuals are looking for their own benefit, what is reasonable. If the revenues have to come throw pollution, they will not stop, because as Garret Hardin exposed at the “tragedy of the commons”, the individual will always find that his revenues are over his loses as the loses are paid by the whole society, whereas the benefit are for him. If there is not a way throw which the individual pay the loses done by his action, he will continue doing it.
The main difference between the market for pollution permits and the interventionism is that the permits create more incentives than taxes, or better said, permits create incentives, which are those exposed previously. Taxes does not create incentives as they move throw laws.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear kote.z:
I agree with all your point of views, specially the first one. But don´t you think that the revenues could be invested at merit services as pavements, etc?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could use that money for whatever purpose they feel would best serve the country. If they decided to take a "green" approach to use the money they could spend it on anti-pollution equipment which they could then sell for cheap to firms that pollute the most. The money could also be invested in research to create better pollution prevention equipment.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The creation of permits alleviates some of the governments work, letting the free market sort itself out. The government may still have to monitor the firms and make sure they are staying under their permitted pollution rate; however, the firms will be less inclined to over-pollute if they can avoid trouble by simply buying more permits.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
The initial creation of permits is to make firms feel as though they are being restricted and their freedom is not being taken away. When giving firms an incentive of paying them to pollute very little, it enhances that feeling of freedom. Also if the company gains money the cost-benefit of polluting may change for the better, as companies would gain more money than they would save by not polluting.
Like stated in the above paragraph, companies will feel less inclined to pollute with permits rather than direct government controls because of the feeling it gives. Firms are made of people, and people have feelings, and if they feel as though they are being treated unfairly, they won't abide by the rules and they will fight back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could invest in the creation/production of greener mechanical equipment that could then be purchased by companies that wish to decrease their pollution levels. This is a good idea because then the externalities are essentially being paid for, and are contributing to the cause that will eventually decrease the externalities that were the initial problem. The investment of the money in greener equipment would create a positive cycle that would feed on itself until worldwide pollution would decrease substantially.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Because it creates a more straightforward method of transition from old to new, and businesses can use the system to their advantage to help them progress from polluting to having more ecologically friendly machinery without losing too much profit. Also, there will be less of a resistance from businesses because the government is technically not controlling the amount of pollution of any particular firm, but instead is setting a limit on the total pollution and waiting for individual businesses to realize that it is more beneficial to decrease their pollution than to have to keep buying pollution rights.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are more enticing than obeying orders from the government to reduce pollution, so they are important in that they will coax businesses to actively reduce the negative externalities. Without incentive, the business is unaware of the negative externalities because they do not have to deal with them. With incentives to decrease the negative externalities, businesses are much more likely to contribute to a decrease in pollution. Pollution permits are a great incentive, better than government controls, because it is a clear, simple way of causing the business to have to suffer from the negative externality to a point where it becomes beneficial to lower the negative externality as opposed to pay for pollution permits.
-Michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Response to Mitchell
Taking your second answer further, I would say that businesses are more accepting of the pollution permits because they pose a business move, in that if the company purchases a certain amount of permits and then waits to decrease their pollution until the demand for the permits increases, the company could well make a profit off of the sale of their pollution permits, as well as afford to upgrade their machinery to more ecologically friendly equipment. It is actually quite the genius setup, in my opinion. Your points are all very good and analytical, I commend you.
-Michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE: Noah
I really like your idea about the government buying permits and holding them with they money they make from selling the permits. Although this was mentioned in the text, it was only brought up about activists who buy the permits. This brings up another point about why the permit system works so well. In no other system could civilians seriously impact pollution, but with the ability to buy permits than can see the results. Possibly in the future this could turn into some sort of "donation" made by rich people who are against pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Response to Noah
For your answer to the first question, you brought up interesting ideas that I had not thought of. I was going more along the track of investing in greener equipment, but you thought to ease the price of existing equipment that pollutes less than what is being used by companies now. That is a good idea because it would put their own money into the purchase of greener equipment, not only enabling companies to upgrade, but also giving the businesses that created the greener equipment the means to create more green equipment. This whole process is a positive cycle that could end in nothing but a decrease in pollution.
-Michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Maybe the government could invest the profit in R+D of some new ways of reducing pollution maintaining a sustainable consumption of resources. With that there could be some solutions offered for corporations along with the permits.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Because it relies in economics principles that are rational and easier to understand than impositions; also the permit itself is perceived by the corporations as a benefit because our mind always tends to prefer permission or recommendation rather than prohibition.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are the most successful system of reducing negative externalities, as I said, prohibition doesn’t work well but instead incentives or recommendations are better received by rational minds.
A market for those permits incentivizes the reduction of pollution by increasing the cost of polluting; which, certainly, changes the balance between benefits and costs of polluting; which is the basis of rational thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE: Noah
It's very interesting what you point out about the control of pollution, by creating a market the other companies will be careful of how much the others pollute in order to still be competitive. Competition is the bases of a market economy. And that's the factor that's missing nowadays in pollution control policies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
As mentioned in the article, they could invest in research on new green technologies that will allow firms to pollute less, even so healthcare and environmental protection are also great areas that always need investment in.
2.Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
This is because the government cannot go around giving each firm an individual firm, as it is too time and money consuming. There would have to be at least one person per firm, and this would be almost impossible to manage and finance.
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
The name says it all, inventives will lead firms to polluting less and steer them out of a negative externalising business into a positive externalising business. The permit market will create both more and less of an incentive; this because if permits are cheaper than green technology than this technology will be ignored, however if they are more expensive than the technology, than they create more of an incentive, it all depends on profit maximization.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE to Javier
I agree with the answers you give to the first two questions, however I think that for the last question you could have considered a scenario where the permts were cheaper than actually getting the needed technology, as this would support your answer for the second question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
A government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits in technologies that will reduce the aforementioned pollution. This is not only good for the government but also good for the environment. Research into sustainable energy is necessary.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits is easier to implement because the government would receive a profit from said pollution permits which they can then use to decrease pollution instead of merely spending their money on forcing the companies to stop or limit pollution entirely. The benefits that the government receives from the investment research could then be distributed to others so that even if they are not purchasing the pollution permits, they can still decrease pollution.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are important because instead of creating a negative tone from the government who is putting restrictions on pollution, companies can be rewarded for less pollution. Incentives add a positive appeal to a negative situation. Depending on the price of the pollution permits vs. the green technology, a company would choose between these things. This is good because if green technology is cheaper, they will purchase it and reduce emission. If pollution permits are cheaper, companies will purchase those and still have to reduce pollution. This is a win-win situation in regards to the total amount polluted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE Michael Mayer:
I very much agree on all three of your answers Michael. Especially with your answer to the third because you were clear and concise in showing the difference between the mentality of incentives vs. taking orders. Well done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Some ways the government could invest the revenue earned from the sale pollution permits to firms would be by buying equipment to clean up places that have been affected through pollution and factories waster materials. They can also plant more trees or plants. They can also generate more electricity from creating new dams and windmills.
• Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is easier as it is a market and a market is where things can be bought and sold. Companies that produce eco green products can make a profit as it is their time to shine. In a market it is more free than a strict government and individuals have a choice to what they can cut down on and what to increase.
• What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are important because it drives companies to achieving reduction in pollution. Firms need to make good decisions to see if they can make a profit out of cutting down on their pollution if they do not find a profit they will not go forward with the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE: Jackson_Mote
I agree with all your answers. They are very clear and to th point. I especially agree with the fact that you have written "Incentives add a positive appeal to a negative situation." which is very true
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Government should use the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms to help reducing the pollution emission or cleaning environment because they collected money under the pretext of reducing pollution emission. One way the government could use the money collected is research new green energy or technologies.
2. A market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because simply, strict government control of the pollution of individual firms is difficult and costly for the government. Moreover, the market system provides expense profit to the firms so it actually motivates the business better than government control.
3. Obviously if the producers of the negative externalities (this case the pollution makers) are not given incentives to reduce the cause of market failure, they will not even try to reduce the negative externalities because they are not motivated. The effort of reducing pollution (negative externalities) are usually not profitable directly to a firm so the producers of the negative externalities will not do anything without and incentives. Further, in my opinion a market for pollution permits create more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls because government controls do not provide any expense benefits whereas the market provides a profit incentive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment on Deepa John
in the last question i stated same error as you which is firms don't do anything that is not profitable. There are some cases a firm do something not for the money like donating money to haiti. There are some acts from a business in order to give good images to general public and get a better reputation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Discussion questions:
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
It could be used to fund or subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
Because it is hard to supervise such control programs because not only is it high-cost, it is virtually impossible to effectively monitor the pollution emitted by the polluting firms.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
A market for pollution permits creates more incentive to reduce emissions in general because permits increases the production cost for the polluting firms which would decrease revenue. Therefore, in order for those firms to minimize the damage inflicted upon their profits, they will have to develop more environment-friendly ways of producing goods. However, it may decrease incentive in the sense that it sends a wrong message to the public by awarding more pollution permits to firms which pollute more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Frederico Cavalho
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
The name says it all, inventives will lead firms to polluting less and steer them out of a negative externalising business into a positive externalising business. The permit market will create both more and less of an incentive; this because if permits are cheaper than green technology than this technology will be ignored, however if they are more expensive than the technology, than they create more of an incentive, it all depends on profit maximization.
Frederico, I don't really understand how the incentives will render a polluting firm into a firm of which its production will have positive externalities – perhaps we can decrease the negative externalities to zero, but unless the nature of the production of the products itself changes radically, I don't think that part is correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1 What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Some of the ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms are plant trees, clean lakes and in generally implement environmentally healthy projects. Money could also be used to educate and provide incentives for companies.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because permits are number pollution can be better measured and controlled. Also the permit system provides a choice to the individual firms: by a permit or reduced your pollution yourself.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are very important as a mean of reducing a pollution by all firms. This way it is the companies themselves who have to pay for the negative externalities, even though they are reduced. Pollution permits de-create incentive to reduce emission because only a certain number of permits are available. Therefore the price may be high, so firms may also choose to reduce their own pollution. Direct government control could not come u with a fair cost or price for pollution control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Government can spend the revenue from "the market for externality permits" on many things. However, first thing they would want to do would be developing the pollution abatement technologies. So that the pollution level in a country decreases. Also, like the author of the article says, the government could spend its money on improving "green energies". Which produce no pollution.
Besides that, the government can spend its revenue on many different things. Such are public goods, which satisfy the population.
2) Market for the pollution permits are easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms, because it will create many opportunities for the polluting factories. They will purchase these permits and will try to have less pollution. After a while, they won't need many permits and they'll start selling them to other firms. So, this system is much flexible for the firms that pollute. In addition, the government won't have anything to do. They will collect the revenue and try to create the pollution abatement technologies.
3) Incentives are very important in achieving reduction of negative externalities, because by them, the firms that pollute can actually make profit. So, this means that, the level of pollution will significantly decrease.
In my opinion, market for pollution permits create more of an incentive to reduce emissions, because the firms will buy the permits, then they will reduce their pollution by pollution abatement technologies and then sell the permits which aren't needed anymore. However, it all depends on the prices of the permits and if it is direct government control, it will depend on tax prices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE: Jackson_Mote
I agree with your answers. Especially the last one. I liked that you mentioned the prices too. I think, prices are very important when we talk about the incentives in this case. I think that a market of pollution permits would create less of an incentive, if the prices of the permits would be low. In this case, the firms would prefer to go on polluting and they would buy permits for cheap prices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Government can use the money that is gained from the revenues by gmaking firms to clean the pollution they make. However, I think the government can also put some taxes on pollution. For example, If a firm is using forests to produce their goods with woods, the governments can intervene and start a new taxation such as a green tax which will decrease the number of trees that firms use or firm will plant new seeds for every tree they cut.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits easer to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms. It is about the market structure in which the government cannot control every single individual firm, because it will cost too much and in some ways it is not possible. Thus, government chooses to control some specific things and leaves other to market and firms to control.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives plays a significant role in achieving reduction of negative externalities such as pollution. I think a market for pollution permits create more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government control, because for government it cost too much and not possible to control every firm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Merab
I think your answers are pretty good and it is very logical to talk about prices in third question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Government could invest the revenue from the pollution permits to the building of parks. This would lead to a cleaner environment with more trees and plants that would produce oxygen. Additionally, government could give incentives to firms that pollute the environment in a yearly basis.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because as the permits are issued, the firms can be easily tracked and investigated. On the other hand, the strict government control would be nearly impossible with so many firms in the market and the level of pollution being so high.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are important in reducing negative externalities because as the law is enforced to stop these negative externalities, firms would not listen. The encouragement with monetary or beneficial would be entice the firms more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Ozge_Elif_Ozer
Very good examples and detailed explanations. I agree with you in most of the points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
It could do anything with it, since it has a lot of needs, it can build roads, hospitals ext. But it would be good if one of the requisites for the earned money would be that it will be spent on something regarding the environment, such as cleaning up rivers, or investing on green technologies, also by buying new renewable energy plants.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is a lot easier because they let the market do its job, instead of doing it themselves. If they did the difficult thing then they would have to spend time and money on inspectors, analysts and people who will monitor the transactions and punctuality of payments. By issuing these permits, then they just sell them and the firms do the rest.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are important because people and firms are rational, they will not change their ways and spend more money on greener factories if they don't see a benefit by doing it. If there is no incentive then they will not care about producing negative externalities. It creates less of an incentive than strict government controls but it still creates a big incentive. It allows more liberty, since they allow the firm to have a choice: buy permits and pollute more or pollute less and earn money
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello Kang San
This is regarding your answer to question 1.
I believe in what you say, the government could invest in parks. But I don't think that the environment needs more oxygen, green areas are necessary. Also they could use the money for investment in similar things, like green energy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The money earned from the sale of the permits can be used to enhance the pollution-abatement technology. It may also be used to create new environmentally friendly methods of production. Lastly, it nay be directly used to help the environment.
2. Strict government control of pollution requires a complex administration. The government should follow the production of each producer and decide an appropriate tax or fine to impose. The decision of how much high the fine should be is another problem, as well. On the other hand, in the market system, the individuals can buy permits, hold them for a while and sell them at high prices. This would make the producers to pollute less. Besides, the government can use the money earned from the sale of permits in favor of the environment.
3.Incentives are to motivate the producers. They lead the producers to the profits. Strict government controls which are generally taxes do not motivate the producers to take steps to establish pollution-abatement technology. They generally make the producers to keep the prices high and reduce the supply. On the other hand, permits drive the producers to take a step to establish pollution abatement technology because the producers think that they can use the permits to make profits. Permits can be incentives for the producers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jaewan hong
You are right that the government can use the money to find some new green technologies to favor environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Government could invest the money and use for public goods such as street lightings or heath care and education for example. To money can be use as a remedy for pollution emission in that country too.
It is because as we all know all firms are trying to maximize their profit and cut their costs as low as possible. Firms will try to reduce pollution with the permit given because if ever they exceeded the amount given they will have to pay which means costs will increase. While if they do not exceed the limit, firms can still sell the permit and still receive money in return which can be part of profit increase. On the other hand, strict government control is costly and it is quite impossible for government to keep track on every single individual firms.
Market for pollution permits lessen the incentive to reduce emissions. Like what I have said in the second answer, firms try to lessen down the pollution emission and use the chance or selling the permit to get more profit. While there is direct government controls, firms will not be incentive enough once they are taxed and costs will increase.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ozge_Elif_Ozer
that is a good explanation too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.The government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits in research and development of clean energy so that it can eventually replace the harmful energy sources used today.
2. A market for pollution permits is easier to implement because it regulates itself. The government offers an inelastic supply curve, and the firms in the market have figure out how they accommodate either to produce in a way in which their levels of pollution are reduced or to pay for several pollution permits. On the other hand, strict government controls require a great amount of attention from the government to ensure that no firm is violating the restrictions.
3. A market is more competitive when it is not controlled by the government. This means that selling pollution permits, rather than imposing strict government controls, boosts competition between firms which motivates them to want to reduce the amount of pollution they produce so that they can lower their average costs and successfully compete with other firms in the market and attract more consumers than their opponents.
Strict government controls often lead to discontent towards the government and disobedience. Many firms do not comply with the government’s legislation and find ways to escape government punishment or simply accept to deal with it. Instead, by making a market out of the sale of pollution permits, firms are forced deal with the market situation and so have an incentive to reduce the amount of pollution they produce, or face being obliged to leave the market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mehmet_Mert_Suma
You make a very good point about how government policies are likely to only lead producers to reduce supply. In the short run this could be seen as something beneficial in the sense that if a firm produces less, it pollutes less. However, this soon becomes something negative for consumers and the environment. Consumers can obtain less energy and have to pay very high prices, while producers are operating inefficiently. Consequently, no effort is made to find new means by which energy can be produced without harming the environment so badly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could use the revenue to protect forests and biodiversity so as to find an equilibrium. Plant more trees and develop eco-friendly machines.
• Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is more easy to implement because strict government control is very difficult to achieve because they would need to wast a lot of resources to regulate.
• What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
It creates less of an incentive to pollute and more an incentive to develop non polluting technologies because this would drive their production costs back down as they would not require to buy pollution permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ nicole sonderegger noris
very good points.
Completely agree that once the pollution permits are implemented. firms will compete to find alternative ways to continue their production without having to pollute and as consequence not buying the permits required to do so. This will eventually result in a increase of technological developments that who knows to were they might lead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Getting guaratees of the big companies is a great step in order to slow pollution in the earth. Because thay are one who pollute.
2) Controling the waste product of the companies is a great deal for government. The government can only puat a high tax or increase the price very highly to pollute. Therefore, it is easier to implement because; it is cheaper. Permiting give a chance to owners of the company in order to arrange the money according to their sales.
3) I think incebtives are unavodiable in order to active a reduction in negative externalities. It sometimes can be more important that the government control. It is more cheap, because.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ tiffany_william
I agree with your answers:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms are that they could concentrate on finding ways for the firms to pollute less. The government could be working on eco-friendly machinery for some firms, or try to reduce the pollution that already exists. Therefore, having fewer firms buying the permits to pollute since more firms will have machines that don’t harm the environment.
2. Market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because the government cannot go around every single day taking care of all firms one by one, supervising their use of machinery and the way they pollute. It is much easier to sell permits to pollute so that they know which are the firms that are able to pollute and they can control pollution easier this way. If it is needed, the government can lower or increase the price of the permits or the amount of pollution that each firm can release. This way, the government is the one that faces the consequences if anything happens in the firms that have permits to pollute.
3. The importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities is that people are more aware of the decisions that they take when polluting the environment and they try to cooperate with the environment when they see the consequences that arise when there is so much pollution. With the pollution permits the firms are more aware and want to stop pollution and try to make the pollution to a least. Their permits can then be sold to other firms and they gain money from it. A market for pollution permits creates more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls because with the permits the firms want to become more eco-friendly and try to gain a little extra profit by selling their permits when they already have their eco-friendly machines or ways of working.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Fabian_MontoyaFendt
Your answers are pretty good. I like your response for the first and third questions. In the first one, it is true that the government can use that revenue to protect biodiversity and forests to find an equilibrium. And in the third one you mentioned that once these firms have their non polluting machinery, their costs back down and they don't really need the pollution permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits in the research of technology related to renewable resources and subside the research of new ways to obtain energy.
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The pollution permits are easier to implement than a government control because my not have the ability to do it well. For example the government could have trouble determine the tax to each company depending on the amount of pollution the produce. As well the government will not be able to hire the amount of people necessary to control the pollution produce by the companies. In the other hand with the pollution permits the companies are able to buy a permit for the amount of pollution they will produce so their is no problem with the governmental control and the rest of the work will be done by the forces of the market.
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
The incentives for achieving reduction of negative externalities are important because the resources are been allocative in a more efficient way. As result their is less pollution and there are more product in the market needed. The permits create more incentive to reduce the emissions because they marginal benefit will be greater than the marginal cost of paying the permit. The governmental control will not affect the the reduction of emissions in the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Daniella I agree with you the pollution permits create more incentive to reduce the amount of emissions produce by the companies than the governmental control. The rest of your comment have good ideas for example the ways the government could invest the money from the pollution permits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. To invest in the research and development of pollution abatement technologies.
2. To enhance emissions monitoring and reporting system. For example, to develop carbon emission detecting and auto-charge instruments.
The reason why a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms is because an omniscient government never exists. It is very hard to assess the exact value of the cost of pollution by only a group of professors in the government. However, with the help of market power, the pollution rights will achieve an equilibrium level by each member in the pollution permit market considers only their self-interest. The value of the cost of pollution thus can be better assessed by all the participants in the market. Depending on the amount demanded, the market price achieved reflects the willingness of industries buying the rights. The higher the price is, the less the right is demanded. By making pollution a “good”, the government provides incentives for industries to reduce their pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Francisco_Jose_Carillo_Fernandez
I agree with your idea that a market for pollution permits create less of an incentive to reduce emissions while it allows companies to have free choice.
In my opinion, a combination of market-based instruemnts and government direct regulation will be the most effective way of reducing negative externalities in most case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. One way a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms is stated in this article, which is to invest money or subsidize the research of “pollution abatement technologies” (such as solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy and many more). Another way a government could invest the revenue into treating the toxic wastes, whether by providing the required equipment to the polluters or through direct government provision.
2. I personally think that it is easier to implement a market for pollution permits, as it is more ‘logical’. I say ‘logical’ because pollution permits do not ban the production of each firm but puts a limit on them as to how much they are able to pollute. Therefore different firms can choose whether to pollute above the limit and pay the extra amount or below the limit and earn the revenue. A strict government control of the pollution of individual firm would probably mean ALL or most firms in the nation, as most firms would generally emit pollution. Even if the spillover costs of the environment is reduced or fixed, there would be a spillover cost towards the government, as they would need to constantly check each and every firm to control their carbon emissions.
3. The motivation or the incentives are very important in achieving reduction of negative externalities as the firms and/or each individual would be encouraged to reduce/eliminate the negative externalities of production. One thing that motivates everyone is money. The market for pollution permits creates an incentive to reduce emission, as firms are able to emit below the permit and sell their pollution permit to others, in which they are able to make revenue. Even in real life people would be driven by money in good and bad ways. For example a child is given a “permit” or regulation of how much time they are allowed to spend on a video game. If the child spends time playing his/her video games under his “permit” or rule, he/she gets pocket money to save, and if he/she plays longer than the “permit”, he/she does not get any pocket money. The child is motivated to play less video game to earn some pocket money from his/her parents. Therefore I think that a market for pollution permits create more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls. Also in my point of view the firms may think that they would be paying money (fines) anyways if they break the rules or law, therefore firms are keener on the method of pollution permits rather than direct government control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To: Deepa_John
I had the same mindset as you in your third response to the question. However what if the company is making a loss? I believe that the "loss" may be an incentive itself as it would motivate the firms to try to reduce/eliminate the loss and make profit. Also I know I've also talked mainly about profits but most companies/firms are able to obtain brand/consumer loyalty of some sort by being "eco-friendly". Therefore the firms could be supported by certain groups (environmentalists) and the firms could be motivated by those kind of factors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The best way for them to invest it would be in research and development of greener technologies and practices. This way, the pollution money would work towards making pollution unnecessary.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It’s easier to implement because it negates the need for and extensive government bureaucracy to set, enforce, and punish violations on strict pollution regulations.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Firms are rational – they seek to maximize their profits. Without an incentive to reduce their negative externalities, doing so is not profitable to them, so they won’t do it. A market creates more of an incentive as it is more profitable to the firms to purchase the permits. It would help them in competition with other firms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Tomoya Sekine
I agree that reducing toxic waste would be a good manner in which the government could invest the money. I think that it would be good for all areas of pollution – they could use the money to reverse much of the environmental harm caused by pollutants and restore the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government could spend it on researching new green technologies such as wind and solar power.
Pollution permits are easier because not the government or any other organization has the capabilities to monitor all the factories all the time to see exactly how much they are polluting.
Incentives are very important because they make the firm want to participate. It is much more enticing than strict limits because the permit trading actually allows firms to earn a revenue while becoming more environmentally friendly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Fabian_MontoyaFendt
How would it drive down production costs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Some ways that a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms is in finding more about it in order to have an advancing or improving in how to do better. This would be by making some research.
The market for pollusion permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because the strict government control of the pollution is very difficult to regulate. Instead, the market for pollusion permits is easier to regulate.
The importance of the incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities is that it affects in a lower quantity the consumers or the citizens. This would be a "plus" for the incentives. A market for pollution permits create more of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls because it takes a lot less time, meaning that it would be much more efficient. So if you are in search of efficiency, the pollution permits would create more incentives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Talia Green
The best way for them to invest it would be in research and development of greener technologies and practices. This way, the pollution money would work towards making pollution unnecessary.
I agree with your points that the best way to invest it would be in research and development of greener technologies and practices because I think the same way. Research would definitely be the best investment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
-What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms can be used in a positive way. For example they can clean up the environment. They can keep the world clean and by planting a lot of trees they can keep the world green.
-Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
A market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms. This becomes, because government can't control each firm. Especially the individual firms. If they do this it will cost too much for the government. So government controls only some important firms.
-What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
I think incentives have an important role in achieving reduction of negative externalities. As an example to this I can say "pollution".
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Juan_Manuel_Arguedas_Rodriguez
I liked your opinions for the questions. Especially for the 3rd question. Your explanation helped me to understand the question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
One of the alternative is; the government could invest the money, that they make for improving Technologies. E.g. to make new machines which pollutes environment less than current ones.
2.Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is easier to implement pollution permits, as it uses the concept of a market. It would be very difficult to control if the companies stick to the regulation. Moreover, there should be more people to check .
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
When people health is getting less damaged( e.g. pollution) , there will be social benefits of reducing negative externalities. It is better for the government to make a market pollution permits than putting strict controls , because the government can make profit from that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Daniella
I agree with you .As you said the government could invest money on finding ways for the firms to pollute less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Government can use this revenue for the sake of environment. For example, government can create new environmentally friendly ways of producing for companies. Also they can use this money to clean up the damage that’s already done by the companies and they can spend this money on technology for reducing environmental damage. Moreover, they can spend more money on alternative energy types like wind tribunes or solar energy. In short saying they should use this money on environmental aspects in order to turn negative externalities into positive ones.
2) The market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms because government always want companies to do their job. If they use strict government control then they need to spend more time on it, also they should use more money to inspect them which is not economically profitable. But when they permit they also earn loads of money which they can use to fix environmental damage.
3) Incentives are very significant for firms and companies as they only think about economical benefit. Because the aim of a company is to earn as much as they can instead of spending loads of money on environmental ways of producing that decrease their profit. So incentives play big role to motivate companies about environmental aspects. Strict government controls do not motivate companies, they usually make companies disobedient. But when there are permits companies can turn them into profits which make these permits into incentives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Daniella Majluf
I agree with your answers. I think you made a very good explanation for the second question. Government cannot inspect a company every single day in order to be strict ruler. So this lead companies to pollute environment more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
They could use the extra revenue to pay for wind farms or other green energy sources that don't pollute as much. It would also mean that governments could pay for environmental damage that has already been done. For example planting trees or investing money into promoting recycling centers so that they might become more abundant.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
No matter how strict the control is on firms, chances are they will find a way to bypass the control or find loopholes in which they can pollute just as much without any dire consequences. There isn't any way of bypassing taxes because it's directly against the law.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Every firm wants to maximize profits, so by reducing CO2 emissions by buying lots of permits, the permits that the company realized it might not need, it can sell them off for pure profit. This is the incentive to buy the permits and reduce their pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
The government could invest the revenue in many things. If they wanted to keep with the environmental idea, they could invest in clean energy research such as wind, solar, or fusion power. They could also invest to reduce other negative externalities such as smoking. Really they could use the money for anything they would want.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
The pollution permits idea is much easier to implement because there is a return from it. Strict government control would be extremely hard to enforce (as we saw with the whole BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico region) and there needs to be money spent on the enforcement. On the other hand a pollution permits idea that involves a tax is much harder for a firm to avoid, and the government doesn't have to do much to enforce it. They also gain large amounts of revenue from this plan. This makes the pollution permits idea a much more attractive plan to the government.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are very important in reducing negative externalites. This is because it allows there to be a greater incentive for firms to want to start the program in the first place, and for the ones that are suffering from the program, it gives them a reason to change. If a firm is an extremely efficient firm (in regards to pollution and environmental friendliness) they would want a program like this as they would most likely be benefiting from it. Firms that aren't as good may have a consequence from being inefficient, but they would have a reason to change. The idea of earning money is much more attractive than paying less money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Juan_Manuel_Arguedas_Rodriguez
I really liked the way how you answered the third question. I think that the idea of incentives is extremely important when talking about something such as environmental responsibility (which no one wants to take the blame for). You have to give people a reason to care and incentives, such as money, is a great way to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
A government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of production permits to firm by environmentally friendly ways of producing which may lead the environment pollute less. “. Furthermore, if the permits are auctioned off from the beginning, billions can earned in revenue for the government, which in theory could be used to subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.” (from the article) Government could invest money or subsidize.
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
“It reduces society’s costs because pollution rights can be bought and sold. Some firms will find it cheaper to buy the rights than to acquire abatement equipment; other firms can sell their rights because they may be able to reduce pollution at a lower cost. The incentive for all firms is to reduce their own pollution and sell the permits they no longer need, adding to the profits of “green firms”.”( from the article) And also individual firms can buy permits to make more expensive for firms to pollute.
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
Incentives are very important in achieving reduction of negative externalities. “If conservation or individuals wish to make it more expensive for firms to pollute, they can buy permits and hold them. This drives up the price of remaining rights, further encouraging polluters to reduce emissions.”( from the article) As I have mentioned in the second question by individual firms the incetive emissions can be reduced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Karen:
It was a nice idea to mention about the article called " The Commons of Tragedy" but it would be better if you mentioned this article in the same answer too…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Government can use that money for building public goods or money can be used for finding solutions for overcome the pollution problem by create new methods to decrease pollution in production process.
2.Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
As in article mentioned, control of pollution is very hard thing for government. They do not use taxation or another things because it is hard to decide how much will it be and how can they control the pollution by taxation so selling permits for pollution is a good way for controlling that and by doing that individuals can also get this permits so price of permits will become much and it will force firms to find more environmentally friendly methods for production.
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
When government controls it by taxes, firms are reducing their supply and increase prices so by doing that they can control their profit easily and consumers are being damaged by that so governments use permits to overcome that problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Asucan Odcikin
I agree with your idea which is using revenue for the sake of environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. To take further steps that they can reduce the pollution, the government could use that money to investigate about the way to reduce the emission of CO2 gases or any other pollutes in to national level, such as planting trees. Though this looks like really small thing, if it is conducted into the national level and done regularly, the efficiency of it would increase tremendously, which would contribute to solve the global warming problems and any other environmental problems. Also, government’s investigation would help companies that cannot make investigate themselves due to financial reasons.
2. I don’t get the second question that much, but I think this is easier to implement than having really strict government, because this lets corporations to work individually. When there is one strict government, the government has to intervene all the details to control the pollution problem, and this would cost a lot to actually supervise them and there would be so many wastes in the administration process, too.
3. By putting pollute permits in economic meaning, the market theory would work to reduce the negative externalities. As it is mentioned in the article, if the corporation does not reduce the money spend on to buy permits, their costs of production would be higher, and this would make them lose competition in the meaning of price in the market. Therefore, this regulation would encourage reducing emissions of CO2 gases by giving them reason to try to reduce CO2 gases.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Muhammet Emin Uylas
I think your explanation about question 2 and 3 is really good. I was kind of lost when i first read the question, but now i was able to get what's going in in this article
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that the best way is that all of this money should be put into one pool in which funds solemnly the progress of alternative energies and funding initiatives which are making changes to the amounts of pollution released (in all forms: cars, factories, etc.). The amount of revenue that can be generated from these permits is immense and I genuinely think that the right way to allocate this money is to help improve the progression of the world in terms of keeping the planet green and clean.
2. The market for pollution permits is easier to implement than strict government control because there is less regulation needed with the permits, it is basically left up to the individual businesses to handle their permits and sell them off to each other. With strict government control there is a lot of government attention needed to assure the proper follow through of the regulations and thus it might not be carried out as effectively since it is harder for the government to properly evaluate which businesses are producing too much waste or are not following the rules, etc.
3. When government controls it by taxes, firms are reducing their supply and increase prices so by doing that they can control their profit easily and consumers are being damaged by that so governments use permits to overcome that problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Goverment could do that by tending towards to the use of reneweable engergy such as hydroelectric and wave and wind. Also government may take initiatives to decrease pollution and emission of CO2 gases. Also enviromentally friendly products and users of those products can be appreciarted by government and taxes can be imposed to the ones who do not use.
Government control is not economically profitable issue. It also causes loss of time and there will be money spent on inspectors to check it.
A market for pollution permits leads consumer to be more incentive to decrease emissions because it increases the production cost for the polluting firms which would decline revenue. To firms to minimize the damage inflicted upon their profits, they have to improve more environment-friendly ways of producing services, goods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
Government can invest this money in building some renewable energy sources like wind, solar etc. They can also use the money to provide required equipment to people or firms responsible of pollution, also called polluter.
2.Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
It is easier to implement because there is less regulation needed with the permits. In strict government control of the pollution, there is going to be a wast of many resources to regulate.
3.What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?
I think that incentives will have an important impact on reducing negative externatilies. Because for example sometimes, a force for you to do all your HW is needed (in this case you is the firms and the force is government).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0