[true_religion]

> Are we NOT going to build something valuable because the output of a few mines are missing?

Actually, yes. Instead of producing 2000 widgets, we produce only 1800 and fire one worker. That worker who was already living at the fringe of survival, now suffers far more than you'd expect. Perhaps they survive, but their 2 month old child dies of malnutrition as the family scrounges for food.

Minor bits of economic disadvantage can have great cost to people.

Now, of course, it'd be better to simply subsidize people so they won't die regardless of if a mine is built or not. That's the solution that I support, as I'd err on the side of caution when it comes to ecological damage as it is hard to fix, and susceptible to being a classic tragedy of the commons since no one owns it.

[ceejayoz]

> Instead of producing 2000 widgets, we produce only 1800 and fire one worker.

Do we?

As we're seeing with oil extraction, the actual thing we do seems to be "hire scientists, come up with new ways to extract, and start a brand new sector of the industry".

[quotemstr]

You're arguing the broken windows fallacy. Every economic inefficiency --- every forced deviation from what people would prefer to produce --- has a cost. Those scientists, if not working around misguided resource extraction bans, could have worked on something even more beneficial.

[ceejayoz]

> Every economic inefficiency --- every forced deviation from what people would prefer to produce --- has a cost.

It's not always that clear.

Replacing coal with solar was an economic inefficiency, until enough investment into solar happened. It's now cheaper to produce a MW/h via solar than via coal.

And that's before you factor in the pollution externalities.

We're all better off now because we did the temporarily inefficient thing via (in part) government intervention.