Environmental Taxation
Nature grants us air and water just as it does land, yet the costs of using these resources are often not accounted for. The air is ours to breathe, and allowing the unfettered use of the air outside is no different than allowing someone to leave their car on inside your home, filling it with fumes.
In line with the same principles that justify the taxation of land, the same treatment should apply to air and water. A tax must be levied on the use of air in the form of pollution taxes in order to account for the costs of hazardous emissions. In order to not saddle producers with costs which will render them uncompetitive, the revenues raised from these particular taxes should be fully returned to industry by directing the funds toward capacity for inexpensive, abundant, clean energy and technologies. The revenues would go directly into the Electrical Energy Bank, paying for the fixed costs of power production, thereby maintaining energy affordability. Likewise, the use of coastal territory for fishing must be taxed in a similar manner, with the revenues raised directed toward funding for sustainable aquaculture development, funded through the Agricultural Bank. These costs must also be accounted for with imported products.Using taxation in these areas to factor in the costs of using publicly inherited resources creates incentives for market-based solutions. The money raised can then effectively be used to provide funding for these solutions and grow the economy. The alternative of using a purely regulatory approach keeps a lid on economic growth, allows room for loopholes, and ties up courts. Rules, when they do need to be in place, need appropriate cost-benefit analysis, and may require creative solutions. If water used for fracking, for example, is required to be sourced from solar powered desalinization plants, or an environmentally friendly water capture method, it may aid both the environment and the economy by spurring new industry.