Usually, Pigouvian taxes like the one OP was proposing are calculated to cover the complete externalized costs of the item being taxed. So in this case, it would include the costs of adjusting to climate change. This would make alternatives relatively cheaper, as well as raising revenue to support research and construction of new energy infrastructure, as well as point addressing of specific projects identified to reduce the impacts of climate change. Of course, this is all if you believe that the current political climate (not only in the US, but in large middle income economies as well) can support such taxes. And then you have to decide what the tax should be! Ultimately, cap and trade turn out to be far easier.
one benefit of pigovian taxes is increased revenue to ameliorate the externality, but it's not the main goal of the tax. the cost itself reduces demand to the socially optimal level. the government could well burn the tax revenue (or in this case, recycle the paper) and still achieve the objectives of the tax.
Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)
Obviously those booster rockets might get a bit tired after doing daily commuter flights for a decade or so, therefore there will also come a time when a third world country, e.g. Bangladesh becomes the place where old booster rockets go to be scrapped, so, next to the ships on the beach booster rockets crash down and small children working with no health and safety tear them to pieces.
None of which say anything about planetary contamination. GP is right that there is absolutely no laws enforcing “planetary protection” on commercial entities (thankfully).
UNOOSA, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IX [1]:
"States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue
studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct
exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination..."
Note that State parties are responsible for the actions of their nationals later in the paragraph.
Is the above wrong? I admit to not being a space person.
Wow that is selective quoting. The law is “harmful contamination of the Earth”. Nice use of “...” there. That text is only about bringing stuff back to earth.
Read your link again. That sentence, the only one which says harmful contamination, refers to the earth, And only the earth. It is very explicit about that. I don’t know what else to say.
Not to wade into your fight, but danaliv is right. Here is (most of) the sentence:
“States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter....”
The “their harmful contamination” part clearly refers to something plural (the moon and other celestial bodies). The second part would be redundant if those were sources, rather than recipients of contaimination.
Yeah but NASA doesn’t get to just say no out of spite or anything, which legaly speaking is what a planetary protection objection would be. There is no statute they can point to that says commercial entities can’t litter the solar system with microbes if they want.
Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies reads in part (emphasis added):
"State Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."
This conversation is about whether NASA would object to an FAA-issued launch license on the basis of potential contamination, not whether there are police on the moon.
Right; NASA would have to decide to observe some unenforceable treaty. They also have to decide whether to launch on national leprechaun day or not. I'm not sure why either is an issue NASA would step up to try and enforce.
I know that GSuite would like to differentiate its enterprise products by features, but allowing basic/business plans to force U2F would be great. Since it's also available in GCP's Cloud Identity product (which is free), I hope this is coming down the road.
