To expand on my last point somewhat, consider plastic items as one example. In the article, the author mentions that some unnamed people [who exactly?] criticize the idea that "the environmental impact of making virgin plastic [are] “minimal,” a conclusion based more on the emissions and energy required to recycle plastic than the fact that the stuff persists in the environment forever.".
Take that last point – plastic "persists in the environment forever" – and let's just assume it's true (for reasonable interpretations of "forever"). What then are the full costs to manage all of the plastic we produce and use? I'm fine with making everyone pay (thru a tax, say) for the costs of cleaning-up (almost) all of the plastic that persists in places we'd rather it not, like the oceans or really any place that's not a landfill. If the tax rate required to cover those costs is really high then that's a nice reliable signal sent to everyone considering buying something that uses plastic that they should reconsider. Some things presumably would still warrant being made out of plastic, regardless of a high tax rate; others could easily be made out of something else.
This is known as a Pigovian environmental tax. It isn't done for the same reason we continue to subsidize the living daylights out of industries like industrial corn farming - while it's likely a good idea in the long run, in the short run it's a fast way of not getting elected for another term.
It's also a really hard thing to do fairly. How do you determine "costs" of specific environmental ills? How much is a pound of waste cardboard worth in tax dollars? What about something entirely non-recyclable, like a designer thermoset plastic?
(I'd love to see it happen though - I just doubt that the political will exists to see it through)
It is done. Ecotaxes & waste disposal fees exist in many countries for various types of products. A common example (at least in Europe) are taxes on plastic bags.
You're right, I should have said "isn't widely done as a full offset". You see watered down versions, but a true Pigovian tax would be priced to offset 100% of the negative externality.
I agree with your first paragraph but not your second. I imagine you've got a pretty strict standard of what would be "fair" but I don't think it's inherently difficult to come up with a technical solution to determining costs or allocating them among different people.
I think you're absolutely right tho that taxes like this are unlikely. They're certainly rare now.
Many communities have thrift stores that take donations. The thrift store then becomes a place of employment for mentally disabled people or others struggling to find work.
Take that last point – plastic "persists in the environment forever" – and let's just assume it's true (for reasonable interpretations of "forever"). What then are the full costs to manage all of the plastic we produce and use? I'm fine with making everyone pay (thru a tax, say) for the costs of cleaning-up (almost) all of the plastic that persists in places we'd rather it not, like the oceans or really any place that's not a landfill. If the tax rate required to cover those costs is really high then that's a nice reliable signal sent to everyone considering buying something that uses plastic that they should reconsider. Some things presumably would still warrant being made out of plastic, regardless of a high tax rate; others could easily be made out of something else.