Sometimes simple acts such as shoplifting can become a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose a organic farm produced on the other side of the country, or a locally grown, non-organic variant that is 50 miles away? Are the benefits of a chemically-free shampoo more than $ 5 a bottle? Will he really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar, knowing that the producers of cocoa beans are unlikely to be compensated enough?
Just as I would like to say that you always buy environmentally friendly and sustainable products, in reality this is not always the case. First of all, the mere information needed to differentiate between products is astonishing. It only mentions data on environmental impacts, transport costs and fair trade practices. And there are a lot of mute information and greening campaigns to guide you in the wrong direction.
Secondly, there are, of course, times when the high cost of ethically manufactured products is cut off from it. Even the best-intentioned consumers have their breakthrough.
Things are that companies that can achieve sustainable practices have higher production costs. Certainly they sometimes take advantage of this marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a little more, but the fact remains that today's system of green manufacturing is punished
. On the other hand, factories (and workplaces) are able to produce and market their products at a fraction of the cost to developing countries with loose environmental standards and cheap labor (while shipping and finished products worldwide and our greenhouse gas problems) 19659002] that there are high environmental standards in one country to be located in places where it is permissible to pollute the market. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is an excellent example of a well-intentioned company that has to compete in order to maintain a competitive price for products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China with bad environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems.
Currently, talking about cap and commercial emissions programs, this phenomenon can only be worse  So what's the playing field , and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think of this problem, I will return to an idea that I occasionally talked about during an alien journey. I can not remember his face or name, but his idea got stuck with me and he was embarrassed in the last part of last year. It was an expectation that the financial burden of environmental responsibility on companies simply has no meaning for the reasons I have given. In a global market, companies are less competitive than those who are exempt from environmental and labor law.
Would it no longer make sense if the product was "environmental impact" or "ecological footprint" tax? 19659002] Ugh, tax?
Initially, I did not warm up on the idea. But think about it: adding a tax-based tax on a product's ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All the environmental costs that are not currently included in our economic system will take into account and increase the price of unsustainably harvested products.
This would, in turn, ease the moral dilemmas in the store. Is it more sustainable to buy remote, organic products or local non-organic products? Tax-regulated pricing should inform its decision. Can I allow chemical-free shampoo? Yes, as the price of the environmental impact tax would be increased by its competitors in the chemical industry and the cost-effectiveness of choosing a product would be abolished.
Money from tax could use its implementation and other sustainable programs, such as public transport (high-speed rail, anyone?) And alternative energy. This may be a little bit worse for the wrong budget deficit
Is this not going to pay me money?
You may think, "Of course, that's a good idea in the concept, but that will increase my bills – grocery, clothes, everything." Yes, that's true. But perhaps when we see the actual cost of the products we accidentally use, we can make more informed choices about what is really needed for our lives.
In addition, such programs often have the most impact on the poor. But this could be compensated by the use of tax revenues for needs-based assistance programs.
Regardless of whether the economic system is based on the assumption of endless resources, it is basically faulty. At present, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution and deforestation do not take account of the cost of the product: these are to be regarded as "externalities".
These costs are included in a system that does not punish those who conduct sustainable business practices. Taxing the environmental impact of the product is governed by the conditions of competition for consumers.
Of course I am not an economist or a policy guru. I do not know how to introduce such a tax, or if possible (although it is not so difficult compared to the market for carbon dioxide trading). It's just a thought of an intelligent citizen who seeks to meditate in a way that our economic system meets our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a positive impact on our production system? Join the conversation on our site!
Source by sbobet