[CptFribble]

If we began taxing externalities to reflect actual total cost to society, consumer behavior would change real quick.

My only concern is that we are too far down to rabbit hole with cheap, ubiquitous, damaging materials that if the true cost was reflected in the price no one could afford anything.

[worldsayshi]

That's my fear as well but that is no excuse at all for not trying though. Because such reason would still never make the no-action option preferable to the action option.

[dmritard96]

I think not being able to afford these things is the goal though. The trick is in how you do it.

The simplest example is just phasing in a 'negative externality tax'. First year is x * .1, second year is x * .2, etc.

I think the trade tariffs should be done the same way so that we don't just shock and awe and everyone can reposition in ways that works for all while also ultimately addressing the various parties issues. I don't understand the step function style introduction of change - it seems like a really clumsy approach.

[intended]

Hah, I guarantee it.

The majority of this forum will think from a first world perspective.

Remember that per capita consumption of plastic in India is FAR lower than the first world average.

And then remember that no politician in the world can be elected, unless he promises growth - which directly means more consumption of plastic wrapped goods.

We haven't even seen peak plastic.

In only part jest, I think our best hope is a plastic eating bacterium, which will also mean that plastic ceases to be the wonder compound it is.

[ams6110]

But who quantifies the cost of the externalities? Tons of room for political games there.

[WalterSear]

So we shouldn't try?

Political games are all there is.

[rrcaptain]

>Political games are all there is.

That's not true. A better world is possible, but not if we restrict ourselves to shortminded solutions like taxes and electoral politics. This is a systemic flaw, you can't work inside of the system to try to solve it.

[b1daly]

So you have it all worked out then? What do you propose?

[WalterSear]

So what's the alternative? Innumerate libertarian pipe dreams? Bolshevik revolution?

[rrcaptain]

There's literally centuries of thought on leftist alternatives. I can't sufficiently explain them in a HN comment. But The Conquest of Bread is a good place to start.

[WalterSear]

Innumerate Libertarian Bolshevik revolution pipe dreams. Well played.

[ethiclub]

It is lovely to see the phrase "taxing externalities" in use.

This surely is the answer - The issue is getting government to take a scientific and 'holistic' stance on legislating.

The issue is the delay between need becoming known, and governmental action (and, said governmental action is often watered down from internal debate and compromise).

One wonders which will mature first - Government or Consumer atttidues & action. If consumer demands are quicker than the state, then Capitalism will solve this problem (people vote with wallets, and purchase items from organisations that identify and offset externalities) If the state is quicker, then government will solve this problem (Identifying externalities and taxing).

Governmental solving of the problem appears preferable. It is an ideal entity for accountability and governance (by definition of course).

[rrcaptain]

>My only concern is that we are too far down to rabbit hole with cheap, ubiquitous, damaging materials that if the true cost was reflected in the price no one could afford anything.

The reality is even worse than that: since capitalism has produced an increasingly impoverished proletariat, the cheapest most disposable goods are all that's affordable to much of the general population. We have the capability to make clothing that will last years, but we don't because it's not profitable for large corporations and the labor aristocrscy are the only ones who can afford quality goods.

We need to abolish the consumerist mindset inherent to and required by capitalism in order to save the Earth.