Am I a policy nerd?

[Alanka]

Hey Forum,

I just got the "Uranium Deposit Promises To Enrich @@MYNATION@@" issue and I was annoyed with the possible answers. The one I chose was the third "There's no need for an either-or decision," answer but I didn't really like it because it sets up a sliding slope towards no more rainforest. What I wanted to do was set up a government institution in charge of oversight of the rainforest (call it the Environmental Protection Institution) and monitor the amount of destruction done and then tax the mining company for this destruction. The money would go into a fund which the government will use to pay for the rebuilding of the rainforest once the mining company leaves. The scheme has several benefits: 1. We get the uranium, 2. We get to keep the rainforest, 3. The mining company will raise the price of the uranium to pay the tax, the people who benefit therefore pay for the cleanup, 4. The mining company has a reason to keep the forest intact since more destruction would result in a higher tax.

In case you are wondering, yes that is what popped into my mind immediately after reading the issue.. Words like 'habitat destruction', 'noise pollution', 'negative externality' and 'pigovian tax' were flying through my mind.

So, am I a policy nerd?

[Primorum Libertorum]

I remember having this option on another question (Animal Liberation Front Strikes Again): Economist @@RANDOMNAME@@ has an alternative. "You don't need to take away the people's right to choose. You just need to build the costs of animal suffering into the price. A tax on meat-eating, in proportion to the amount of cruelty involved, would do the trick. Plus think of the benefit for the national coffers! Of course, poor people wouldn't be able to afford meat, but that's just more incentive for them to get jobs."

While I am impressed with the quality of most of the issues, some definitely need improvement. But regarding the Uranium, I think the dilemma consists of deciding whether one would sacrifice the environment for economic goals. Even if you taxed it, the destruction of the rainforest would be irreparable.

PS: Awww, the third option led to the destruction of my "many lush forests" and turned them into a "barren, inhosiptable wasteland". I thought most of the rainforest would be preserved?