3 ms·
Actually, I think we do. This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumpti
by adgasf 9y ago
Actually, I think we do.
This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumption, etc) make almost no difference to the overall problem. We need to ensure that the vast majority make these changes.
The (simplified) payoff matrix is something like this:
----
I am green: I win
Society is green: We all win a lot
----
I am green: I lose a lot
Society is not green: We all lose a lot
----
I am not green: I win a lot
Society is green: We all win a lot
----
I am not green: I lose, but at least I have a big car
Society is not green: We all lose a lot
----
There are two ways out of the trap:
1. Innovation makes green solutions cheaper and better, such that going green is a win for the individual and for society.
2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation.
- bamboozled 9y agoYou're doing it again: > 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation. That's not happening, but I'm sure you've noticed. So you're better off to invest in and back the innovators with your wallet by purchasing their products and by divesting (this need to be done, actively to work), which is what I said originally. Also there is plenty to gain from being innovative on a personal level. For example, you may perceive consuming less is a "cost" but is it really? If I consume less, I have more money (meaning I have to work less), I have less "stuff" to deal with, and I have less rubbish to throw out. You're not giving me anything new to be honest.