Taxing resource extraction alone can hurt the poor it is meant to help.

Evidence

Focusing exclusively on the extraction of primary resources, as does Pogge, could hurt the poor more than it helps, suggests Hayward. The burden should not be on simple extraction, but on the overall economic benefit, and ecological cost, of the use of resources. Such a focus has the benefit of including both the extraction of resources and the ‘disbenefits’ in the form of pollution and other ecological externalities. For Hayward (p. 325), the point is that the concept of ecological space should be conceived of as addressing the ‘ongoing initial appropriation of nature by humans’. The normative justification for levying such a tax is based on the degree of excess use of ecological space (p. 330) rather than simply the use of resources. In this way, distributive justice is served by requiring those who occupy more, and disproportionate, ecological space to compensate others who do not. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 386

Categorization

• XREF: Counterintuitive wrinkle to bring into Eco-Justice and Legal Systems: naive resource-dividend schemes (Pogge) can backfire on their intended beneficiaries; measurable ‘ecological space’ appropriation is the fairer tax base.