Part of the true cost of these products is their security risk. That cost should ultimately be paid by those who use the product. Otherwise there is no incentiv

Part of the true cost of these products is their security risk. That cost should ultimately be paid by those who use the product. Otherwise there is no incentive for people to find better, safer chemicals/means to achieve their goals. Passing the cost on to 'society' provides no incentive and so leads to a continued inefficient overuse of these resources. As usual Bruce Schneier demonstrates no understanding of market economics when he says > There's no free lunch, of course. "We", as in society, still pay for it in increased prices It's not 'we as a society' who would pay for it but those people who chose to use those products or their derivatives. The crucial difference is that one option provide incentive to change and the other doesn't.