Title: Do you want to commute to work?......FINE!
Problem: Long and exaggerated commutes to work have led to the following problems (list not complete
Problems: traffic jams, Construction to account for the traffic, gasoline taxes to pay for the construction, easier access to suburbs that are further away, LONGER commute times, traffic jams, Construction to account for the traffic, gasoline taxes to pay for the construction, easier access to suburbs that are further away, LONGER commute times, traffic jams, Construction to account for the traffic, gasoline taxes to pay for the construction, easier access to suburbs that are further away, LONGER commute times, traffic jams, which leads to something else that I cannot think of off the top of my head but Canadians are guilty of sprawling too (see below)....AND everyone thinks they are SOOOOOOO polite (pshfffshaaawww!)
Peripheral problems: Urban blight, urban sprawl, food deserts, waste, CO2 emissions, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
My solution: FINE THE (gasoline-powered, automobile) COMMUTERS DIRECTLY....Keep track of who is commuting, how much gasoline, roads, oil, electricity, power, pavement, construction, accidents, and commution they are using, and then make a standard fine for each...then impound their vehicles till they pay...Use the money from the fines to destroy all cars, suburbs, commuters, and CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere
OR My solution: Create policies that Incentivize (give incentives (i.e tax breaks or tax refunds)) companies to offer more pay to employees that commute less in gasoline-powered automobiles to the point that the greatest incentive is given to those who do not spend any energy other than what they have put into their bodies via the form of digested food (direct photosynthesizing commuters are exempt).
CAVEAT: I do not think that this solution has not been thought of before, sooo I will do some research on things that have and haven't worked for people confined to certain geographic areas in the past, present, or future.
What do you think? If you thought anything you are OBLIGATED (being forced, coerced, bribed, or blackmailed) to write it in the comments section below. (The link below is not the comments section, it is a link to the Alabama Academy of Sciences)
http://www.alabamaacademyofscience.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/2742
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=682008 (<-------I live closest to #1)
Economics has a lot to say on this matter. Basically, you have a problem of externalities. Externalities occur when the consequences of an action are not entirely felt by the individual engaging in the action. There are both good and bad externalities, and in this case, we see a bad externality when people choosing to commute to work are not bearing all the costs associated with that commute. The pollution of that one individual is spread across thousands if not millions of neighboring individuals. This leads them to choose actions that have benefits that are much less than the costs, creating a negative social benefit. Positive externalities can exist as well, such as the one seen when society benefits through less disease from the inoculation of an individual. Since potential immunizers will not see the complete societal benefits directly, it will result in less than the ideal number of immunizations.
ReplyDeleteI could talk a lot about the economics of externalities, but the basic gist is that the only efficient way of dealing with them is to extract the costs from those receiving the benefits. This means a tax for negative externalities and a subsidy for positive ones. Since you are dealing with negative externalities, your second solution of subsidizing would be much less ideal in terms of net social gains, although still better than doing nothing.
If you're interested, we can talk more in depth about what economists have to say about things like air pollution.