The government here has just introduced an “alco-pop” tax to discourage teens from drinking sweet alcoholic drinks.

The anecdotal evidence suggests people are now buying hard spirits instead.

Adriana is right. We need social solutions, rather than political ones.

People are using fewer plastic shopping bags because of increased awareness. We don’t need a new tax to stop people using them.

Mike, I’ve been spending some time on the cost of change, it formed a focal point of my “Open” talk at SuperNova. Again the subject of a post to follow. Thanks for helping me articulate those thoughts.

Chewing gum from a company with a scheme that cleans gum off streets is a great example. I’d buy that for a few pennies extra- so would an increasing number of other people. Who knew that the cost of clearing up gum is so high? As people’s consciousness is raised through the new communications and the new social awareness and ethical thinking, we will exercise our “consumer” choice to address problems like these. The role of business of to give us that opportunity. First they need to believe that we want it, and then they need to spread the word.

(And let’s not even begin to think about the cost of damage and repair to data…).

The business of change (which is the business we are all in, these days) relies for its effectiveness on our ability to direct our efforts to those places where we can get the most return for least effort. Your observations on the hidden costs of repair and damage gives us another way to help identify where we should direct our attention. We need to be asking where is the metaphorical chewing gum getting in the works? The answers may not always be the obvious ones.

“If a man will begin in certainties he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties.”

Like you I feel that a ‘tax’ to raise the cost of damage is generally wrong, but I feel much more strongly that subsidies are wrong. Yet I don’t wish to arrive at a position where I am sure that subsidies are always wrong. If I became sure of such a general principle then I would stop examining each case on its merits. I hold strong views, but I am prepared to change them in the light of new evidence. That means never really being “sure” of anything.

And I’m surprised you want to come to a position where you are sure it is never appropriate to raise the cost of damage. In your “In two words, Im-possible: The problem with counterintuition” post you specifically said you wanted to keep challenging your views.

I am also way not a fan of the nanny state; nor am I am truly in favour of increasing taxation.

The point I was trying to make, badly, was something else. I was using the chewing gum “tax” as an example to open up a debate. What debate?

The debate I wanted to engender was one of protecting “the commons” against damage. Education has been, is, and will continue to be, a good way of doing this. Reducing the cost of repair is also a good way. What I wanted to see was whether there was any justification in raising the cost of damage.

I see DRM as a “raise the cost of damage” approach, and you could have guessed by now that I am not a fan of DRM. I see Congestion Charge as a “raise the cost of damage” approach, and still marvel at how a congestion charge quietly became an energy charge as well. And no, I am not a fan of the Congestion Charge either.

I would love to come to a position where I am sure that it is never appropriate to raise the cost of damage, but I have not got there yet.

Not all chewing gum consumers dispose of their spent gum inappropriately. To penalize all chewers because a minority litter strikes me as draconian considering a more equitable solution would be to enforce existing anti-littering laws and assess fines to violators, the revenue from which would offset the damage cost.

In the final equation I would oppose your proposed solution simply on the basis that companies really don’t pay taxes, they offset tax costs as higher prices to consumers. As Adriana points out, uses tax policy to change human behavior has precious few success stories. Many countries have jacked up the taxes on cigarettes only to find that smoking levels do not decrease but a new addiction is formed, the state’s addiction to cigarette tax revenues.