Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Paying More For Flights Eases Guilt, Not Emissions
What concepts apply to offset programs? Should these programs be used in a free market society? Will they help?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome. This is a blog dedicated to the students enrolled in the CSHS AP Economics classes. Click on the title of the article, read, and click comment.
Favorite Links
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(21)
-
▼
November
(9)
- How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?
- Wave of Debt Facing US Government
- Developing Countries Voice Complaints About Chines...
- Fixed rates and protectionism
- Paying More For Flights Eases Guilt, Not Emissions
- Lump Sum vs. Per Unit Cost in 60 seconds
- Monopoly graph in 90 seconds
- Who are the unemployed?
- Behind the Jobless Rate
-
▼
November
(9)
Not that I couldn't think of multiple economic concepts that apply to this situation, but I choose to stick with "incentives" because I feel that it s the economic concept I know and can vouch at my greatest of qualitative abilities.
ReplyDeleteIt's blatantly obvious that the major economic factor in this situation is intentions, and more specificly, the unknown and/or unadverised effects of taking an incentive. The consumers of airline tickets, I feel, take the minority of the blame here, since they seem to be mislead by the advertisers of this "carbon offset" program. It is with good intention of saving the environment that these consumers engage in the carbon offset program, yet do not know that their contributions really have no effect whether you look at it from a short-run or long-run perspective.
To abbreviate my agrument, I'll just jump to a hypothetical alternative that, if implemented correctly, responsibly, and efficiently, could actually reduce the harm airline travels causes to the environment. Rename the "carbon offset" program whatever you want, or don't rename it at all, but I simply think that the extra money consumers are paying to "help save the environment" should be allocated towards designing and manufacturing planes that are more fuel efficient and produce significantly less carbon emissions, or towards new technology seemingly fictitious, such as hover crafts (farfecthed, I know) that wouldn't produce any carbon emissions. Furthermore, it should be clearly advertised where the consumers' donations are going and the money should be used efficiently so that innovation in the marketplace manifests fast enough so that it can be seen by the consumer (so they don't become doubtful of the cause they are donating to).
Just a quick list of other economic concepts I perceived to appear withing the issue: inefficient allocation of resources, short-run and long-run effects [on the environment], and marginal benefit analysis.
ReplyDeleteDid Al Gore inspire this post Ms. Meachum? He had a nice cameo appearance on NBC's "Green Week". Hahaha....
ReplyDeleteConsumers that buy this so called "carbon offset" should know what that are actually paying for. But here is something that I think was overlooked...
These Airlines wouldn't offer this option useless if not for the enormous pressure put on them to be "green" by hypocrites like Al Gore of biased media stations like MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NBC..did i mention NBC? I digress...
Or maybe they are using the feeling of social responsibly to go "green" as a money making opportunity.
Either way...thanks Al!
The article pointed out how some people would justify their air travel with the fact that they paid a few more dollars for a carbon offset, when in reality the offset wasn't really doing anything, hence the cancellation of the program.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, the airline companies used the offsets as incentives for people to fly, saying, "You can still travel, and not make the world more polluted." If only it had been true..
The pollution would also be considered an externality, on the grounds that it is being produced as a byproduct of travel.
I think that offsets are a good idea, and should be used in a free market society. At this point, many of the programs haven't figured out how to fix this huge pollution problem we have going on. But as soon as someone comes up with the answer, I would go as far to say that offsets should be required.
Otherwise we may not get to argue about it in 50 years.
After reading the article, I am not convinced that this specific program will help in a free market society. It said how these offsets actually encouraged people to fly more often, not quite mitigating the carbon issue that was mentioned in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThese offsets are a good idea in some cases, but this one seems to have some kinks.
There are many different concepts that apply to offset programs. I think that these types of programs should not be used unless the money that is being paid is being used to improve the challange that the money is being paid for. I think that this money is not going to make people stop flying. I think that people will just pay the fee and think that it will be better than if they did not have to pay. Many people do not even care about the carbon that is being emitted into our atmosphere, so this program would just make them mad.
ReplyDeleteIn a free-market society, you can sell anything you want, so why not sell these carbon offsetting items? They don't actually do anything, or at the very least, not enough to offset your carbon emissions in the long-run, but the incentive to buy them is there, and so they can be sold.
ReplyDeleteEconomic concepts that can be applied to these offset programs are both positive and negative externalities. On the one hand, the pollution that one airplane, helicopter, or jet plane emits is great for every flight they take. These offset programs do not make up for that amount of polluted air they just cause. It is a negative externality. The transaction between an airline company and the passenger who chooses to fly on their airplane affects people and communities that did not make that same choice nor have any say on that voyage. Yet, the air being polluted affects everyone who has to breathe it, live in it, or deal with the harms of polluting our already harmed enviroment for the many years to come. Soon, we might all be forced to wear gas masks in order to prevent the inhaling of such toxic emissions. A positive externality of these offset programs are the projects that are created/completed because of the money collected. Without this option to passengers many projects that do help the environment have been followed through- a feat not usually possible due to high costs.
ReplyDeleteConsumers should not be fooled to think that their payment actually makes up for the percentage of emissions emited into the air on their behalf during said flight. They should not feel guilty-free. But they should feel great pleasure in knowing they helped. So as to not encourage more flying because of such a program-therefore canceling out the effort- the consumer should also limit their flying. If they were to find alternative modes of transportations or of completing their goal without flying- they could be helping as well. Living their life being much more eco-friendly is what would make a difference to the few times in which they he no other option but to fly.
In a free-market society, anything can be sold/traded. There is no limit. Whether this type of program helps, I would probably hae to say yes but not because of its direct effect, but, because of its unconscious affects. It affects the mind of people. They will be looking for ways to prevent and/or offset the polluting they do in their lives. This program- to me- showed a step in the right direction. It shows that people are becoming more conscious of their effects on this planet, and how they have to change in order to still have somewhere to live. Though most environmental changes are too drastic for the average man- this is the beginning of a slow and gradual movement to becoming much more eco-friendly.