3 ms·

It's not really that simple -- there are lots of ways to spend less money while generating more pollution. I could spend less money by piling up my trash in my

It's not really that simple -- there are lots of ways to spend less money while generating more pollution. I could spend less money by piling up my trash in my back yard instead of paying a waste management company to haul it away. But that's not going to reduce the amount of pollution I've caused, and will likely increase it.

voisin 3y ago
If you don’t spend money, then you ultimately have less stuff to put in your back yard. Hauling it away doesn’t change the net amount of pollution - it’s still pollution in a landfill, just less unsightly. Perhaps if everyone had to put their waste in their own backyard people would opt for products that produce less waste! I live rurally and have to take my waste and recycling to the transfer station. It’s free but a pain in the ass so I try to make decisions which produce less waste so I don’t have to go as often. Previously I lived somewhere rurally where you had to pay per pound brought to the transfer station - that was an even bigger incentive to cut back on waste.
- Johnny555 3y ago
  If you don't spend money at all, then you've removed yourself from participating in modern society, so that's not a reasonable suggestion. I spent more money to replace my aging furnace with a heat pump to reduce my emissions, so the mere exchange of money doesn't cause pollution. I could have spent a lot less money to repair or replace it with an equivalent 80% efficient furnace. My point is that it's not as simple as "money exchange causes more pollution" since I could stop sending money to my waste management company while not doing anything at all to reduce my personal pollution. Yes there are ways you can reduce your pollution impact (i.e. by buying less unnecessary goods, traveling less, etc), but there are also ways you can spend less money (i.e. by buying cheaper produce imported from another country 1000 miles away than paying a bit more for more local produce) while increasing your environmental impact.

voisin 3y ago

If you don’t spend money, then you ultimately have less stuff to put in your back yard. Hauling it away doesn’t change the net amount of pollution - it’s still pollution in a landfill, just less unsightly. Perhaps if everyone had to put their waste in their own backyard people would opt for products that produce less waste! I live rurally and have to take my waste and recycling to the transfer station. It’s free but a pain in the ass so I try to make decisions which produce less waste so I don’t have to go as often. Previously I lived somewhere rurally where you had to pay per pound brought to the transfer station - that was an even bigger incentive to cut back on waste.

Johnny555 3y ago
If you don't spend money at all, then you've removed yourself from participating in modern society, so that's not a reasonable suggestion. I spent more money to replace my aging furnace with a heat pump to reduce my emissions, so the mere exchange of money doesn't cause pollution. I could have spent a lot less money to repair or replace it with an equivalent 80% efficient furnace. My point is that it's not as simple as "money exchange causes more pollution" since I could stop sending money to my waste management company while not doing anything at all to reduce my personal pollution. Yes there are ways you can reduce your pollution impact (i.e. by buying less unnecessary goods, traveling less, etc), but there are also ways you can spend less money (i.e. by buying cheaper produce imported from another country 1000 miles away than paying a bit more for more local produce) while increasing your environmental impact.