ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
EXTERNAL COSTS
- In the 1990's researchers began to ask who lives around the most polluting facilities? Who breathes in the dirtiest air?...
- Political movement emerged to ensure all communities don't bear a disproportionate share of pollution
- The movement was called the 'Environmental Justice Movement'
- Environmental justice advocates are working to ensure implementation of environmental laws.
- As a result of political movement, federal and state governments have enacted new laws and regulations designed to take into account, the concerns of environmental justice advocates.
- Remains to be seen if the governments will work to achieve environmental justice
- Problems:
- Before addressing concerns, we need to know why certain communities have a disproportionate share of pollution (companies choose those locations because land is cheap, or in low income communities because they put up little political resistance)
- Not enough affordable housing to spread across urban areas
- It's hard to know what we should do to address environmental justice issues
- Not clear what the government can do about the problem regarding the cheap land
- In asking who bears burden of existing pollution, advocates and researchers are asking right questions
- Governments are beginning to find some of the answers
EXTERNAL COSTS
- If a steel producing company can minimize production cost by dumping waste for free, the company will do so.
- Since the cost of pollution clean up is considered not relevant
- Negative effects of pollution are: external costs that are passed on to our society and environment
- Supply curve is related to private production cost
- Product demand yields price and quantity
- Social curve adds external cost due to pollution.
- With this curve included, it shows that less steel should be produced at a higher price.
- Government could correct difference between private and social outcomes, by taxing companies for polluting.
- Tax revenue could be used to reduce pollution
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
- One would like to live in a world with zero pollution
- Technology cannot achieve that outcome at a reasonable economic level
- Necessary to determine a level of pollution reduction that is beneficial and cost efficient
- ex: if river is polluted, swimming is prohibited and fish contain high levels of toxic levels
- Initially, social cost is relatively low
- As pollution reduction is nearing 100 percent, social cost rises dramatically
- Social benefit will be reduced as pollution reduction increases
- Optimal point occurs where the intersection is between the two curves
- As technology improves, social cost shifts outward which means it's practical to increase pollution reduction.
The Story
Of Broke
$ Taxes is used to pay for things we can’t afford on your own.
$ We’re constantly giving away money to the rich.
$ Military takes the biggest chunk of money, even if they don’t need it.
$ Subsidies are used to give money to companies, they many give them to big environmentally unfriendly companies
$ Tax Subsidies go to places like gas and oil companies (billions each year even when business is good)
$ Risk Transfer Taxes, we cover insurances for nuclear reactions
$ We can control where our taxes goes
$ We can vote for environmentally active people
$ Taxes is used to pay for things we can’t afford on your own.
$ We’re constantly giving away money to the rich.
$ Military takes the biggest chunk of money, even if they don’t need it.
$ Subsidies are used to give money to companies, they many give them to big environmentally unfriendly companies
$ Tax Subsidies go to places like gas and oil companies (billions each year even when business is good)
$ Risk Transfer Taxes, we cover insurances for nuclear reactions
$ We can control where our taxes goes
$ We can vote for environmentally active people