Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Silent Spring Question #3
I feel like this might be a stupid question, but I am going to ask it anyway. In both "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Silent Spring" there is discussion of the fact that we are often not actually paying the full price of commodities (whether for food or for pest control, etc.) because all of the various monetary impacts of those services are not calculated. Is it practical to think that we can even determine a "true," so-to-speak, price for such commodities? Does it actually matter because we end up paying the actual price in the end anyway? If we don't pay it, who does?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I don't know if this directly answers your question, but here's an example of how this relates to my world of nutrition.
It has been proposed by some rather extreme policy makers that the government institute a "fat tax" (similar to the tax increase on cigarettes). This means that there is an increased tax on food that is high in fat/sat fat/trans fat/cholesterol and devoid of vitamins and minerals. That way people pay more to cover the costs/consequences of eating food that contributes to obesity and chronic disease. I am, of course, all for it (and like Loren, love my oreos too). But do I think it would ever get passed as law? NO way.
But I do agree with the idea that there should be greater financial responsibility for actions that take a toll on society and the environment. But we are talking about so many complex issues, that putting it into action seems unmanageable.
I really agree that we don't get a fair price for cheap commodities since we aren't considering the ramifications of producing them. But I also feel rather pessimistic and not at all hopeful that we can actually change it.
I think that things like a "fat tax" are a great idea. We do end up paying the "real price" of things no matter what, as taxpayers - "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But I think it would make a big difference if things could somehow be priced according to their actual costs. Its like driving a toll road or bridge, for example. The costs of maintaining the highways are born more directly by those people that are getting the benefit from it and theoretically it may reduce congestion on those roads a bit. If things are priced accordingly, then the 'invisible hand' can work its magic and the economy is more efficient.
However, I see no real way of actually calculating 'societal costs' and placing a tax on it. But I don't think its out of the question completely. That is really what a lot of legislation is about these days, so I don't think its totally ridiculous to pass a 'fat tax'. For example, most people pay a tax on their utility bills to fund programs that increase energy efficiency. The more energy you use, the more you pay to reduce energy consumption somewhere else. It is a lot like the whole purchasing carbon offset phenomena that is going on these days.
I think that some (a lot of?) people are willing to pay the real price of their actions if they really understand the implications of what they do. But there are a lot of people willing to turn a blind eye if they are going to make themselves some money - so the 'real cost' of things would have to be legislated into the price. Which, I agree with Marci, isn't happening too soon with most things.
Post a Comment