Heavy environmental polluters 'should pay less'?!?
Harsher penalties seem only to encourage corruption and bribery, and ultimately more environmental damage, argues Richard Damania at the University of Adelaide in The New Scientist.... Damania says his version would work better in the developing world, where corruption and pollution are rife...."Thailand has some of the most stringent regulations on pollution. But Bangkok is one of the most polluted places on Earth," he points out.
Fortunately, this seems (I haven't read his actual paper) to be more of an anti-corruption than an economic utility argument. But how long do you think before it gets cited by the current US government as prooftext for the next unravelling?