[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel superior to us regular mortals because you are a vegetarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I think the world would be a better place if more people became vegetarian, but I think the same "better place" effect could be achieved by regulating modern agriculture more stringently in some areas and by forcing some of their externalities to be internalized.

In fact, if a good job were done of that, then it would be far more effective at making the world better than if merely more people became vegetarian. While reducing the demand for meat would help, it would only be a big band-aid to a more fundamental problem.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do, you will understand why the hybrid buyer is willing to pay more for their car despite its having a negative effect on the environment. It makes them feel superior to the great unwashed.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife drives a hybrid. She bought it because she enjoys it (part of that enjoyment being the knowledge that she is being socially responsible), not because it makes "financial sense." But that's not my point at all.

My point is that tax incentives to drive lower emmissions vehicles are hardly Peter stealing from Paul. Air pollution is one enormous externality in our economy. Tax credits for lower emmissions are a way to internalize that externality. There's no reason pollution should be "free" to the polluters.

Industries from agriculture to automobiles to energy to mining to textiles to whatever else are taking a big fat dump on our environment. And they are doing so essentially free of charge due to a FLAW in our market system. While I think it's nice if people make responsible decisions on their own, I don't think there's a moral component to that. I'm ok with people acting in rational self-interest, but the structure under which they do that has to minimize externalities and stop the pillaging of the world's resources. Presently our structure comes nowhere close.