This approach caters to the more engaged, more affluent consumer. There will be a niche market for such services and information. If we want to transform the entire society, we need to change policy so that anyone who puts pollution or fertilizer or antibiotics will be required to pay a fee (if most people feel that such actions should be discouraged). We can use random surveys to discern whether the overall amount of pollution or rate of taking of this or that resource is acceptable. By adjusting the fees, we will get the world that (the average opinion of) the people say(s) we should have. That would be a *real* democracy. We could give the proceeds of all fees collected to the people. When overall rates of putting pollution and taking resources matches what the people think is most appropriate, because the right fees are being charged, the prices would reflect those impacts that some of us may not be interested in researching, but that most of us think are worthy of consideration. Prices would reflect true costs. (That price in SuperSaverMart would not be lying to us about the true costs... That which is harmful to the environment or to society (because it accelerates development of antibiotic resistance, for example) would have a higher price tag. The most harmful practices would be eliminated from industry and agriculture. Biodiversity as a Public Good: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/respect-public-property-rights.html Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html
As long as rich white hipsters with discretionary income promote shopping at whole foods (now supplied by China) I don't see change happening. We need a stronger economy first. Vote for change.
thank u Cara Rosaen 4 yor wonderful soul
Great
Genius!!! Thank you.
This approach caters to the more engaged, more affluent consumer. There will be a niche market for such services and information. If we want to transform the entire society, we need to change policy so that anyone who puts pollution or fertilizer or antibiotics will be required to pay a fee (if most people feel that such actions should be discouraged). We can use random surveys to discern whether the overall amount of pollution or rate of taking of this or that resource is acceptable. By adjusting the fees, we will get the world that (the average opinion of) the people say(s) we should have. That would be a *real* democracy. We could give the proceeds of all fees collected to the people.
When overall rates of putting pollution and taking resources matches what the people think is most appropriate, because the right fees are being charged, the prices would reflect those impacts that some of us may not be interested in researching, but that most of us think are worthy of consideration. Prices would reflect true costs. (That price in SuperSaverMart would not be lying to us about the true costs... That which is harmful to the environment or to society (because it accelerates development of antibiotic resistance, for example) would have a higher price tag. The most harmful practices would be eliminated from industry and agriculture.
Biodiversity as a Public Good:
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/respect-public-property-rights.html
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability:
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html
Hey i live in Canada and was wondering if anyone knows of a similar site
@gpmoo7
because transparency decease their profits.
everything is about profits in business.
As long as rich white hipsters with discretionary income promote shopping at whole foods (now supplied by China) I don't see change happening. We need a stronger economy first. Vote for change.