[Johnny555]

Simple. Raise the tax to a point that glass bottles, perhaps with deposit-return schemes, or cotton clothing is cheaper for the consumer than the synthetic equivalents

But first, make sure you understand all of the environmental costs of alternatives to be sure you're not forcing people into an environmentally worse choice. Farming is not exactly a clean industry.

[NeedMoreTea]

Too true. Honestly at this point I wish there was a labelling requirement of the environmental and sustainability consequences of everything. Or that it was priced in to everything somehow. It's far too easy to make a very bad choice with the best of intentions.

[dflock]

A carbon tax is exactly that.

[Johnny555]

A carbon tax only taxes one small part of the full environmental impact of a product.

A synthetic shirt might have less carbon impact than a cotton shirt, but its plastic waste may be poisoning the oceans.

Or, as a made up example, coconut fiber shirt may have environmentally friendly organic degradable waste and a low direct carbon impact, while the demand for coconut caused millions of acres of native forest to be burnt down and replanted with coconut trees. Or maybe it caused the diversion of rivers for irrigation endangering fish and other ecosystems that relied on the rivers. Or maybe the newly planted trees displace food crops, leading to food shortages.

There are a lot of environmental externalities that are hard to account for, and some may not be known for years.

[dflock]

Very true.

However, it's _also_ true that "It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little."

[rhacker]

Are Carbon taxes really effective? Democrats get in, carbon taxes come with them. Republicans get in, carbon taxes leave with the democrats. I don't think taxes will ever solve this unless both sides see the issue.

[rrcaptain]

The US has never had a carbon tax, what are you talking about?