4 ms·
This is a false assumption as well. If people decide to not invest to clean energy/climate-neutrality/reducing waste, it might be fear of freeloading, but it c
by jiriknesl 7y ago
This is a false assumption as well.
If people decide to not invest to clean energy/climate-neutrality/reducing waste, it might be fear of freeloading, but it can be billions of other reasons. But most reasons will have something in common.
And it is not fear of freeloading.
It is a list of priorities. When something is really important for people, they do it, they invest time and money into it.
If people don't invest their time nor money, it is in fact not important for them.
So why tax something that isn't important for people (because if it was important, they everybody would buy clean energy, would stop using plastic & other things)?
- WA 7y agoIt wasn’t important for people in medieval cities to have a working sewer. Nobody would invest in such a thing. But the benefits are obvious. It wasn’t clear to people that putting on a seatbelt saves their lives. Maybe, because there was no seatbelt in the first place. What’s important to people is sometimes a matter of marketing. What’s important to people requires that "the right stuff" is offered. People want to save the environment, but also want to save money. Only way this can work is if products get the damage they cause taxed in. Because right now, the environmentally friendly products are more expensive. It should be the other way around.