CitiesGoGreen - October 2008 - (Page 30) local—designed to minimize its impacts. Old development faced fewer, if any such hurdles, yet it’s still around, continuing to affect the environment. This is certainly not to say that new development adequately mitigates all of its impacts, or that those impacts don’t play a special role in the overall decline of our ecosystems. Mitigation typically applies project by project, with little consideration of the cumulative impacts of development. Moreover, mitigation for new development is typically focused on-site. Yet at least some impacts of development are best mitigated elsewhere, in places with more important roles in how the ecosystem functions. Some sort of cumulative environmental impact fee, which could be spent where it would do the most good for the affected ecosystem, would be a more effective solution. Other forms of natural market forces are easy enough to conceive. Under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, we grant permits to pollute. We even monitor how much of those pollutants are discharged. Why not tax discharges, with higher rates for more dangerous pollutants? This is tax reform, not just a new way of making money. Reducing other taxes is key to that message. We frequently charge stormwater fees based on impervious surface coverage. However, this typically pays only for basic drainage services—correcting major flooding problems and the like—while the impervious surface degrades receiving water bodies every time a storm hits. Implementing a fee to address these broader environmental impacts need not be difficult, especially where impervious fees already exist. We could even provide credit for low-impact development and other effective stormwater management. These principles are both widely applicable and adaptable to the different concerns of different ecosystems. Are these just wild ideas, divorced from political reality? No, for two reasons. First, experience demonstrates they could be popular. I learned this myself the hard way. Back in 2005, the Service Employees International Union sponsored the “Since Sliced Bread” competition. Contestants submitted public policy proposals, which were subjected to review by policy experts and a popular vote over the Internet. Despite the fact that the contest was geared toward traditional labor issues, the popular vote—and the $100,000 first prize—went to a proposal for environmental sin taxes (though it didn’t use that phrase). My wife had suggested I submit my ideas, but after looking at the rules I decided it wasn’t worth my limited time. Sigh. Decreasing taxes The second reason for optimism is that natural market forces could be tied to substantial decreases in property, sales or income taxes. European countries have been doing this for some time—increasing taxes on economic “bads,” which harm our quality of life, while reducing taxes on economic “goods,” which improve it. You can’t get much more simple than that. At rates which are far from draconian, such as my proposed water withdrawal tax and a gas tax that would not come close to covering the full cost of our driving, natural market forces could easily raise more than $1 billion a year in the Puget Sound region. This is about twice what I have estimated might be required to implement the ambitious conservation program described in my book, Saving Puget Sound: A Conservation Strategy for the 21st Century. If the excess were used to decrease taxes, property taxes could permanently drop $1.25 per $1,000 assessed value for every property owner across all 12 counties in the region. I think that could be politically popular. Why bother to raise environmental sin taxes more than necessary to pay for the conservation programs they would fund? Well, this is tax reform, not just a new way of raising money. Reducing other taxes is key to that message. Natural market forces are not just a “good government” idea. They are literally necessary to save the world as we know it. Ironically, an oil man put it most succinctly: Socialism collapsed because it did not allow the market to tell the economic truth. Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth. —Oystein Dahle, retired Vice President of Esso for Norway and the North Sea 2008 Nautilus Book Awards Gold Winner 2008 Axiom Business Book Awards Bronze Winner “An interesting and informative look at money, economics, wealth and what it all means. The lessons in this book provide a timely guide as our society begins the paradigm shift away from crass consumer capitalism toward more sustainable economies and communities where people and the planet matter.” Dean Kubani, Environmental Programs Manager for the City of Santa Monica Available at New Society Publishers www.newsociety.com 1-800-567-6772 ext 111 30 October 2008 http://www.newsociety.com http://citiesgogreen.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.