PETER PASSELL. “Cheapest Protection of Nature May Lie In Taxes, Not Laws” New York Times, November 24, 1992

The article expresses the idea that the environment pollution and waste of resource can be solved by put taxes on polluters and waste producers (Green Tax). The government used to spent large amount of money on controlling the pollution and waste by offset some regulations. The result was not as good as people expected while the society had to burden much cost on it. If the producers pay the full cost of pollution, pollution will reduce immediately and the government can receive a large amount of revenue on it while the cost is very cheap.
But the disadvantages of green tax appear at the same time. Firstly, it is difficult to calculate the cost of pollution or the negative externalities. Secondly, it is unfair to the poor people while most of them live near the landfills and busy highways.
I think the “green tax” is a great idea because if producers are imposed taxes equals to negative externalities, they will surely reduce the output and raise the price at the same time. Although “green tax” will bring some disadvantages, advantages it brings will be more obvious. “Green tax” can be more efficient than offsetting pollution regulations.
The “green tax” involves much microeconomics principles. The pollutions described in the article like noise, poisonous air and so on are all negative externalities. They are costs that arise from production but falls on people other than producers. Only if the external cost is considered, the society can achieve an efficient equilibrium. The “green tax” is a good way to achieve efficient equilibrium.