That’s just going to put up the cost of living and result in more waste as less efficient replacements are put in place labelled temporary measures, also money will get spent on security rather than modernization of facilities - new builds got example using security focused design rather than energy efficient design.
It would be better to crowdfund the development of open source tools and products which are more ecologically sustainable while also being cheaper and better than the current option then collectively support and popularize it to put the prior company out of business.
Localized production of globally developed community products is how we actually beat capitalism, only problem is currently everyone wants to be rambo and no one wants to work as a cog in a citizen science r&d project, it’s not as sexy.
If we’re assuming that market forces can put these companies out of business, then additional spending on security would hasten that. It would be even cheaper for them to just reduce pollution in the first place - their net gains from excessive pollution are less than our net losses from it, making this an externality problem. So with defense on the table, the equilibrium becomes for them to pollute less.
Increased costs to polluters should trickle down to our cost of living about as much as decreased costs have - so, it won’t at all. The polluters are getting the whole surplus here.
Fossil fuels have tremendous engineering advantages if one ignores pollution. It’s not a given that we can invent an ecologically sustainable alternative that will outperform fossil fuels if there are low internal costs to polluting.
Edit: oh and I’m totally joking and haven’t given this a lot of thought or anything
That’s just going to put up the cost of living and result in more waste as less efficient replacements are put in place labelled temporary measures, also money will get spent on security rather than modernization of facilities - new builds got example using security focused design rather than energy efficient design.
It would be better to crowdfund the development of open source tools and products which are more ecologically sustainable while also being cheaper and better than the current option then collectively support and popularize it to put the prior company out of business.
Localized production of globally developed community products is how we actually beat capitalism, only problem is currently everyone wants to be rambo and no one wants to work as a cog in a citizen science r&d project, it’s not as sexy.
If we’re assuming that market forces can put these companies out of business, then additional spending on security would hasten that. It would be even cheaper for them to just reduce pollution in the first place - their net gains from excessive pollution are less than our net losses from it, making this an externality problem. So with defense on the table, the equilibrium becomes for them to pollute less.
Increased costs to polluters should trickle down to our cost of living about as much as decreased costs have - so, it won’t at all. The polluters are getting the whole surplus here.
Fossil fuels have tremendous engineering advantages if one ignores pollution. It’s not a given that we can invent an ecologically sustainable alternative that will outperform fossil fuels if there are low internal costs to polluting.
Edit: oh and I’m totally joking and haven’t given this a lot of thought or anything