• Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

    The absence of it’s application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.

    The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant ‘pollution’.

    It makes so much sense. “You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences.” Only then people make informed decisions.

    • Kage520@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it’s “extra plant food”. This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle’s emissions.

      It’s a great solution, but I don’t know how we could get it passed.

      • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can start from several points in parallel.
        There’s no need to wait for Aramco.