I have a feeling this post is going to stink:
The Town of Boone wants your old toilet. Really, they do—and they’re willing to pay. One hundred bucks per commode—up to three for homeowners in the town. Boone is adding “WaterSense” high-efficiency toilet rebate program to their ‘every drop counts’ program, according to Lane Weiss of the town of Boone, who said they researched programs in Cary, Raleigh and Durham, and tailored a program they hope will work in Boone. She said that they are looking to replace 1.6 gallon per flush and higher toilets with 1.2 gallon toilets, paying $100 per toilet for residential—up to three—and $50 per for commercial—up to 10. The other savings for those who pay the bills—and for the town—saving water.
With apologies to Burton Abrams and George Parsons, I'm working on a new paper called "Is CANS a clunker?" I'll begin the introduction with number 1: describing Bastiat's parable of the broken window. Then I'll take care of business and finish the introduction with number 2:
Today, the Town of Boone appears to be hiring window breakers in the form of the Can Allowance Negate System (CANS) program. Dubbed “Cash for Cans,” the program pays people to trade in old toilets (which are destroyed) for new ones. But the cash for cans program is more complicated than the Bastiat parable. There are additional real economic losses in the form of overconsuming new toilets (the subsidy induces people to buy new toilets even though their willingness to pay for new toilets is less than the going market price). This raises the possibility that the waste exceeds the value of the destroyed toilets. On the other hand there are real economic benefits stemming from water conservation and, if these are large enough, destroying valuable assets could be a net benefit to society. We weigh these costs and benefits in the next sections.
The paper will take a bit of effort (most every time I try to write I seem to get a blockage) but be very satisfying in the end. I'll likely conclude that the "Cash for Cans" program is crappy policy.
Of course, the journals will most likely think that I'm full of ...
