Posted on 10/29/2011 1:32:28 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Encouraging consumers to “buy green” by making environmentally-friendly goods cheaper might have drawbacks as the much feared “rebound effect” could offset gains by pushing for ever more consumption, environmentalists argue. Environmentally-friendly goods are often overpriced for many consumers—and as the economic crisis continues to bite, many suggest that tax incentives are needed to make green shopping more affordable. …
This so-called “rebound effect” has already been acknowledged as a problem in the climate change debate. Owners of a fuel-efficient car might, for example, be more easily tempted to drive further. And the money saved on heating thanks to insulation can be spent on an overseas holiday. …
But it is not only about steering consumer behavior or a few environmentally-conscious buyers to opt for goods that are “better for the environment”. The production side is just as important, if not more, since consumers need to be given the choice of opting for greener purchases. A conference on sustainable food sourcing, held in Brussels last week (19 October), heard that while the average consumer would like to “do the right thing” and buy green, few are willing to pay the price for it. In general, consumers tend to expect that somebody else will be doing the right thing for them. In the retail sector, the practice of steering consumers towards specific choices is called “choice-editing”. Choice-editing means that environmentally-harmful products for instance are simply put off the shelves via regulations and standards, or voluntarily by companies themselves, in a drive to make sustainability inherent to all products.
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
Another word for it: “Fascism”.
Funny how liberals care about preserving choice in only one area. For the other areas, they have no problem destroying freedom of choice, as long as they are the ones making the choice for the rest of us.
Encouraging consumers to "buy green" by making environmentally-friendly goods cheaper might have drawbacks as the much feared "rebound effect" could offset gains by pushing for ever more consumption, environmentalists argue.This is a lesson the a-holes should have learned from the CAFE requirements put on automobiles in the 1970s to present. People could go farther on the same amount of gas, so gas consumption still rises and falls with the market price, meaning people drive farther when prices are lower. There is little net savings beyond the initial rise from 8 to 10 mpg to about 22 mpg. Also, from 1973 to present, the number of autos increased, both in actual numbers and per capita, and the population increased by about 50%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.