Pollution for sale!

Pollution is one example of a Tragedy of the Commons.* Everyone loses if we all pollute, but no one person or factory individually wins if they stop. Is there a way to get a large group of people to all act at once?—-

Let’s say I create a futures contract. This is a contract is a bet on how much pollution there will be, total, next year. I sell many contracts for 50 bucks. At the end of the year, I buy back the contract. The less pollution there was that year, the more I pay.

  • Who will buy the contracts? People who think pollution is going to go down.
  • Who will (short) sell the contracts? People who think pollution is going to go up.

These contracts reflect the price of pollution. For example, if people think there will be a lot of pollution, the contracts won’t be worth much, because people won’t expect me to pay much.

Someone who can reduce pollution can buy a lot of these contracts cheaply, find a way to cut a lot of pollution, and make a lot of money.

Rather than fill in the blanks, I’ll add a few more:

  • What negatives might this cause, particularly with heavy polluters?
  • This system does not require a government authority (to levy fees or enforce permits). In what situations might this be useful/necessary?
  • How (if it is possible), could this be used to affect the level of pollution?

* 2 characteristics of this sort of problem: 1) it involves collective action and 2) is an economic externality.

Comments

  1. nancy says:

    Dude they totally just deleted my comment!
    Anyway what I’d said is this:
    If companies are forced to buy the contracts, then they will be motivated to decrease pollution. The sellers might be the government, speculators, random other people, but the companies themselves should probably not be allowed to sell (just like how CEOs, etc can’t short sell the stock of their own companies). I wonder how the price of the contracts would move. Interesting idea.
    On a side note it seems more natural to me to say that buying the future would mean speculating the price/pollution will go up, but it doesn’t matter.
    o i want to add that i’d thgouht about this from the framework of anarchocpitalism (which just makes sooo much sense even though initially it sounds crazy. i recommend you reading about it!) and come to the conclusion that air and water should be privately owned
    there is such a thing as water rights, i believe, and the only reason we are confused by the idea of privately owned air, etc is that it hasnt been the custom
    anarchocapitalism effectively deals with all the questins of “tragedy of the commons” scnarios by privatizing everything so that there are no commons. When people don’t own something, they are not motivated to take care of it. Anarchocapitlism is great because it expects everyone to be completely selfish and disinterested in the greater good, and working from there achieves a stable society.

  2. Chris says:

    That (reversing the contract payout) sounds right, for some scenarios. A major firm sells pollution contracts that pay more if there is higher pollution, and uses the money to reduce pollution.

  1. [...] Based on a previous idea: [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>