Whyy are not the externalities owned by the owner of the product?
I can think of only 2 reasons:
- the consumer was forced to purchase the product without an option with dire consequences. In this case, the dominator is responsible. This is pretty much anything your taxes buy.
- the producer lied or hid something about the product. In this case, the liar is responsible. E.g., the lies about recycling plastic, the outcome of using internal combustion engines, the safety of leaded gasoline. The list of that is simply enormous.
The entire western economic system is structured in such a way that ethical consumption is difficult and expensive. While certainly I would agree that economically advantaged groups bear some responsibility to make ethical choices about what they consume, expecting someone on minimum wage to pay extra for a lower carbon product seems unreasonable (e.g. taking a train from london to paris is often significantly more expensive than flying).
Fixing the problem of climate change requires deep economic restructuring, and much of the responsibility there lies with those who have the most power to enact these changes (i.e. politicians, ceos, large shareholders). Treating climate change as an issue of individual consumer responsibility has been a long term tactic of large polluters (e.g. oil firms) to shift attention and blame from their damaging activities.
Why does the responsibility solely fall on the product owner? Is it because the product owner is using the product for their own benefit? Is it not true, though, that the product manufacturer is also benefiting from the product’s usage? Why does this benefit not confer any responsibility?
And manufacturers have many choices in what they produce. Your answer explains why consumers have responsibility for their actions. You haven’t explained why, in your opinion, manufacturers can benefit from CO2 emissions but have zero responsibility for their choices.