Overlapping instruments and taxes will be uncoordinated and duplicative.
Logue ’10 [Kyle; June 2010; Wade H. McCree Jr. Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, JD from Yale Law School, BA from Auburn University; Cardozo Law Review, “Coordinating Sanctions in Tort,” vol. 31]
Take the quintessential example of a negative externality - some activity that spews CO<2> into the atmosphere thereby contributing to the global problem of climate change. If a fully cost-internalizing Pigovian tax (say, a carbon-based tax of the sort that many commentators have recently proposed) were imposed on domestic companies by the U.S. government, there obviously need not (and, from an efficiency perspective, should not) be a state-level carbon-based tax on the same polluters for the same carbon emissions. Nor should there be any overlapping command-and-control regulations or any other sort of regulation (including tort liability) designed to regulate the same conduct. It - the external harm caused by CO<2> emission - has, by assumption, already been fully regulated. Redundant regulation represents unnecessary administrative costs and potentially excessive deterrence. The same analysis can be applied to torts. Consider automobile accidents or product-related injuries or medical malpractice harms. All are potentially affected, at least in theory, by the same problem of overlapping, uncoordinated, and thus possibly redundant sanctions; this means either over-deterrence or duplicative and therefore excessive administrative costs, or both. Again, the literature has largely neglected this subject. 7