And now we know the underlying reason..

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2017, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why not both?

Big business has shown a *tendency* to not give a dame about the environment if they can save a buck.

(Now I realize that's just over the last 200 years or so.   )

But encouraging people to do well and penalizing people who do not seems fair to me.

I should have added after my editing of the post, that direct pollution should be penalized, like chemicals in our watershed and what not. But if using fossil fuels is currently the standard, we can't penalize carbon emissions. We should incentivize investment in renewable energy and incentivize reduction of carbon emissions. Make it so that they are saving money by reducing their carbon footprint. It would create jobs, improve innovation, and achieve better results than trying to be punitive.

But, a municipality shouldn't tax plastic shopping bags, for instance. If a store wants to get rid of them to reduce their costs, because it would, then let them. If a store wants to reduce them down by charging for each bag used, then let them. The consumers can choose to go elsewhere if they like. Me, personally, I will go to Aldi where they don't have plastic bags and use other methods to reduce overhead costs and so can sell products for less money. Incentivizing these sorts of things is a much more effective method, just a matter of figuring out how. Hell, the small thing of these water fountains with a counter on them that tells you how many water bottles have been saved by people using the station to fill up their own is such a simple and seemingly unimportant thing, but it makes someone feel they are doing their part. Incentivize.

Anyway, I'm a little out of it this morning, so my thoughts are kind of all over the place.