We must do both. We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. And use the taxation money to invest in scrubbing, cleaning and more efficient ways of travel such as high-speed trains.
Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.
> Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.
That's way too simple, imho. Things come with side effects, usually. Of course, we should not pollute more than necessary, but the fact that there /is/ pollution is just a side effect of having
- a civilisation
- an economy
- better overall health (and, thus, more humans)
- ...
This all makes it possible to pay for welfare.
In that sense, collecting taxes would be just externalizing the costs (of being dependent on welfare, thus being unproductive) to others.
The question, if we should do both is not a question of what sounds more fair, more justified or whatever. If it would turn out that "repairing" is more cost-efficient than "preventing", then why bother with the least effective measure?
> We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides.
Some emissions are simply unavoidable. E.g. producing meat produces methane. So, taxing it would certainly bring down the demand for high-emission products (because of their now higher price) but as long as these products still exists, you won't go to zero.
I doubt fish, pigs or goats produce any methane in any significant amount. Meat can be produced without polluting, it doesnt have to be cows. The cost still has to be payed though, even if it is so low.
Even so, just because some pollution would be hard to stop doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to tax it and every polluter anyway.
Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.
> Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.
And now compare the standard of living in both countries. Or their GNP. Or their healthcare systems.
I'm not saying that they're better of because they burn coal. But I'm saying that using energy is causing so much positive side effects, i.e. that we have an economy. It's just hard to attribute the negative side effects to one "polluter".
Again, with the same argument you might as well stop taxation, because it imposes costs on those who are productive to pay for those who are unproductive. However, upholding civil peace through a welfare system might be of higher value than 'punishing' the less productive people for their lack of capabilities.
Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.