> We _need_ to start pricing in externalities, whether people moan about it or not. Seriously - this is putting the seat belt on in a car level stuff. Deal with it.
Hmm, no it's not on the same level. Perhaps you can deal with it because you can afford to spend more on goods, but people in poverty will rightly moan.
Again, we either reduce consumption, stop emitting (and likely have to capture) CO2, etc, or we kill ourselves.
It does not matter how much the child wails, if it is time to leave the arcade, one must go.
> can afford to spend more on goods
We must all use less. This is not a matter of bits of coloured paper; externalities must be priced in to force the market in the correct direction.
To take an example: if plastic bottles were banned worldwide tomorrow, or suddenly cost 10 USD per, this would have approximately zero effect on those in poverty other than shuffling some jobs around a bit.
You made a silly ad hominem about me potentially being able to afford to ignore increased prices. So let's go ahead and assume the externalities are priced so high that it's an effective ban for all but 0.1% or whatever.
It doesn't make a difference. We are not playing some identity politics game about who gets more or less.
> You made a silly ad hominem about me potentially being able to afford to ignore increased prices. So let's go ahead and assume the externalities are priced so high that it's an effective ban for all but 0.1% or whatever.
Pricing in the externalities doesn't mean we selectively jack the prices up on the "bad stuff" like plastic bottles (where you get to define what's bad). It means that the price of nearly everything goes up because the cost of raw materials, shipping, etc goes up since everyone on the supply chain has to pay for the pollution they're generating now.
Hmm, no it's not on the same level. Perhaps you can deal with it because you can afford to spend more on goods, but people in poverty will rightly moan.