If something is free or almost free then they will not care and will waste the resource. Water is often in the western world charged at a fixed rate, this simply means we have no incentive to save it. As a result showers are left running for longer than they should be, we leave the taps on while brushing our teeth etc. Meanwhile tons of food is wasted when we make a meal and then only eat half of it. Similarly supermarkets sell out lots of food that has passed its sell buy date – though which is still perfectly edible. If these products were to cost more then we would be much more inclined to only use what we need rather than using as much as possible.

In a free market people want value for money. While this means they want the cheapest possible it also means that when they get something that is more expensive they want to see that their money is being put to good use. Water companies, food manufacturers, the producers of raw materials are all likely to be put under more pressure to have good employment standards and not to damage the environment. This in turn would mean better quality of service as well as benefits for the environment.

Because people want value for money does not mean that they would be able to have a positive environmental influence on companies. People want good service and cheap prices, things that affect them directly. They often do not care if the goods they are buying are made with near slave labour or that their use of resources is denying someone else.

Just because not everyone can afford to pay more does not mean that some should not pay more. The value of the commodity becomes over-priced under the market rate.

There are many millions around the world who could not afford to pay more for these goods and services. Many people are very poor and as prices on such essentials are increased they have less to spend on anything else as they need to spend more to survive. As such attempts to price such products higher would be counterproductive. It would hit the poor much harder than the rich because water and food makes up a much greater proportion of their income.

There is no need to take any action to increase the price of these things because the market is already doing this for us. The rise of China and India is increasingly increasing the demand for raw materials and food. At the same time the use of crops to create ethanol from sources such as sugar cane and corn reduces the supply of food. So the prices of food and raw materials are already going up. Similarly (fresh, particularly drinking) water in a world with a rapidly growing population is increasingly in short supply.

Higher prices could however be limited for non essential uses. Everyone could get a certain amount they get at a very cheap rate then they need to pay a large premium in order to get more. This would mean that people in southern California using water from the Colorado river that is drying up for watering their gardens or filling their swimming pools would pay a very large amount while those who are struggling with what they have would need to pay very little.

Water and food in particular are the essentials of life. We can’t live if we go without water for more than a few days or without food for more than a few weeks. Our world is already ravaged by water and food shortages and this would only increase them.

Why are we always thinking about the final point on the chain? Surely to solve the problems at the end, we should start closer to the beginning - at the source of the problem.

Stores provide too much food and resources purposely and waste tonnes every year. If we put a larger charge on Supermarket waste, they wouldn't supply too much and therefore people would only buy what they needed, they would buy to the limits of the stores.

These caps aren't the AMOUNT stores can provide, clearly shops in different places providing different things will supply more/less than other shops. This cap is on the WASTE of the stores and if high-enough, businesses wouldn't continually fill their shelves to make it look nice, they would analyse (as they do now) what is being sold and when and then provide a tiny amount above the usual, so they don't run out.

Surely a system like this would be much fairer on people with lower incomes and wouldn't punish the public, who really aren't in control of the bigger picture.

it really depends how it is done. if we are already thinking of tracking cars then you could be taxed on the amount you drive. The amount you fly, take the train etc could easily be added to this and your electricity/gas bills could equally be added. Food however would be much more difficult.

However it does not have to mean a carbon tax. An import tax on food/raw materials etc entering the country would have a similar effect. For water we simply need to install water meters in homes and price accordingly.

Introducing a carbon tax or some kind of payment would be hell on tax day. Imagine all the huge gaping loopholes in legislation like that. And remember, simple natural functions emit CO2. It would be impossible to measure accurately. The entire project would spend billions of dollars and do practically nothing.