SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Axel Gosseries)
Date:
Mon Jul 30 10:41:06 2007
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
<p06240831c2d394ecaaec@[130.104.187.109]>
References:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
This invisible foot idea is quite interesting 
because it has some link with the fear of many of 
those who are skeptical about tradable permits:

They say: "We are in fact granting extra rights to polluters"

The standard response: "Not at all! We are simply 
restricting their freedom by imposing 
restrictions on emissions. But we do so with the 
help of a market mechanism"

The invisible foot idea as a reply to this 
standard response: "in a dynamic perspective, 
tradable permits generate an incentive to 
generate new negative externalities"

Does this make sense?

What are the references to the Hunt and the D'arge & M?daille papers?

Dr. Axel Gosseries Ramalho


ATOM RSS1 RSS2