Week 14 Discussion — Who Pays for the Spillover? Carbon Prices and Shared Resources — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A workshop's smoke, a crowded fishing lake, and the carbon dioxide from burning fuel all ask the same question: who pays for a cost that lands outside the trade? This week you measured what an unpriced spillover costs and met three fixes, so you can now argue about which fix a government or a community should choose.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: This week's model says that when sellers do not pay for a harm, the market makes too much, and a corrective tax equal to the harm per unit, or a cap on the total, moves it toward the efficient quantity. Carbon dioxide from burning fuel is a spillover of this kind, and whether to price it is a live debate. One view holds that a government should put a price on carbon emissions, through a tax per ton or a cap-and-trade market like the EPA's Acid Rain Program for sulfur dioxide, so that emitters face the full social cost and choose their own cheapest cuts. Another view holds that caution or other tools are wiser: the harm per ton is hard to measure, higher energy costs can weigh most on tight household budgets, production may move to places with no price, and standards or public spending on new technology may be more predictable. Which view do you find stronger, and why? Keep your positive claims (what the model or the evidence shows) apart from your normative ones (what a government ought to do). Do not invent prices, dates, or statistics; describe what you know.

Option B: Choose a shared resource you know firsthand, such as a park, a shared kitchen or fridge, a fishing spot, a parking area, a study room, or a community garden. Say whether it is rival and whether it is excludable, and describe any overuse or free riding you have seen. Then argue which fix you would choose: dividing it into private shares, a rule set and enforced by an outside authority, or rules the users themselves make and enforce, the kind of community management Ostrom (1990) documented. Label which parts of your answer are positive claims and which are normative judgments, and say what fact would change your mind.

There is no single right answer. Economists, voters, and neighbors weigh costs now against benefits later, and private rights against shared rules, in different ways. Pick the one you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say which view on carbon pricing you find stronger, using this week's model (the efficient 20 units against the market's 30, and the 2-dollar corrective tax that removes a deadweight loss of 10) to explain what a price on a spillover does; for Option B, name the shared resource, say whether it is rival and excludable, and say which fix you would choose.
• Give the strongest version of the view you disagree with in one or two sentences, and say why you still hold your position or what part of the other view you accept.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (externality, social cost, corrective tax, cap-and-trade, common resource) correctly.
• Label at least one of your claims as positive (what the model or the evidence shows) and at least one as normative (what ought to be done).
• Do not invent prices, dates, or statistics, and cite no climate or carbon figure you cannot source to the body that issued it.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: point out where a post uses private cost where social cost belongs, check whether a post set a corrective tax to the total harm instead of the harm per unit, or argue the other side of the question at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B, the shared fridge in my apartment. The positive part: shelf space is rival, since my groceries leave less room for yours, and it is not excludable, since anyone in the unit can open it, so it is a common resource, and it fills up with old food. The normative part: I would choose rules the four of us make and enforce, a labeled shelf each and a weekly clear-out, over asking the landlord to set rules. The strongest objection is that our own rules lapse when someone stops caring. I accept that risk, so I would want to see whether the rules hold for a month.

Notice how it names both properties of the good, labels the positive and the normative parts, and gives the other side its strongest form. Someone who argued for an outside rule, or wrote about carbon pricing, as carefully would meet the same bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com