By having this introduced, it increases the private cost of consumption or production. This may then reduce the demand and the output for the particular product which causes these negative externalities. Another reason that taxation is effective is because it can encourage producers to produce less and get better value products through the use of recycling and composting. This also affects the supply curve, shifting it to the left which also increases the price of the factors of production to create those products. For example, there could be landfill tax which encourages people to dump less as it imposes an indirect tax.
This seems to be a disregard for human life. From a human rights perspective, Ford disregarded the injured individual's rights and therefore, in making the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethically. The suggested improvement outweighs their benefits; they do not want to bear the cost. Ford could bargain with manufacturer for a lower cost of alteration of the tank, then maybe they can change their mind and pinto wouldn’t burn so many people
I believe whole-heartedly that government intervention as well as taxation should be justified when these industries are not providing optimal amount of a good for society’s well-being. When a tax is put on someone’s favorite soda, they are either going to buy a similar drink that is untaxed or not buy the drink at all. Typically, the body does not account for liquid calories as much as it does food calories, therefore making it easier to drink more sugared drinks. Usually people do not to feel full from a sugary drink, which makes it less likely to buy foods that will replace the taxed beverage. They would be more likely to drink one or two more cans of soda rather than eating a snack or a full meal.
Yes, It's the great importante for many company to minimise the impact that their products have on the environment ,but it's totally unacceptable for companies to make false claims. Many consumers think that a lot of companies pretended to be green just to charge higher
Question 1 Utilitarianism Ethics It would seem in this instance if “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” was to broadcast the prank, it would not promote the greater good. The greater good could include the company maintaining their public perception of ethical behaviour and being compassionate to all individuals. The negatives could be that the radio station might feel restricted in what they can and cannot do, and this may be another indicator of that fact. Specifically, how they cannot share a humorous prank on air. By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial.
Case 14-1 (Green and Lean) Going Green has economic advantages which normally impact profitability. For George and Jeff to achieve their objective about going Green and lean simultaneously, they need to focus on some of the old axioms for transportation efficiency, namely, “don’t ship air” and “don’t ship water.” “Don’t ship air”, this recognizes that empty space in a motor carrier trailer or from empty backhauls or less- than-capacity dispatches is wasted and never recovered. So George and Jeff can put emphasis on consolidation to fill equipment to capacity or near capacity. This has a potential to significantly reduce network miles, especially in the motor carrier sector. The reduction in the network miles will improve fuel efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint.
This is sometimes the best route to go rather you are bad with paying bills or not. It’s considered a safe haven. I personally prefer this method. You can also have the customer pay for the entire bill upfront at the time of service so they are starting off the repayment process with a zero dollar balance. Some may wish to have the customer do a down payment for the service and pay the rest on the upcoming due date.
But what is their direct ease on enforcing this law? After this law was passed, beside major benefits like contributing to decrement of global warming, San Francisco benefited in many other ways. Firstly, environment pollution and volume of waste was significantly reduced. Secondly, they saved money that they spent on disposing waste materials. Thirdly, people are less likely to experience deceases caused by polluted
What it comes down to is if one believes recycling is good for the environment and is ethical, or if the bad outweighs the good and recycling is bad and unethical. The part of the world that is for recycling argues that recycling protects the environment, recycling creates sustainable use of resources, and recycling creates green jobs and opportunities to make money off recycling. People who are against recycling argue that contamination is easily spread, recycling is too expensive and that the recycling process produces a lot of pollutants. While there are many good things that can come from recycling, there is also a dark side. During the recycling process contamination is very, easily spread.
Disposal techniques such as burning and using dumpsites only push the environment further down the drain (Logomasini, 1); since such waste disposal methods bring about environmental concerns as well. Governments have recycling directives in place but companies and individuals are still having the liberty to recycle the waste on their own, and this is where the government directives get overlooked. Disposing biodegradable waste is not as challenging as other waste that naturally decomposes leaving organic benefits to the environment. That being the case, therefore, it means that non-biodegradable waste poses a massive challenge to conservation efforts making it essential to come up with an effective and comprehensive recycling mechanism. This exploratory argumentative paper will delve deep into the case of why recycling the non0biodegradeable waste should be made mandatory by the government for all private individuals and corporate entities to comply with.