Post AxN3MEMUZjpmfU0ScS by BrahmaBelarusian@regenerate.social
 (DIR) More posts by BrahmaBelarusian@regenerate.social
 (DIR) Post #AxN3M4S9PqQ1w8Zq3E by BrahmaBelarusian@regenerate.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Whatever ecofriendly/less polluting item you push for, be it via tax credits to get an item or banning what is deemed "worse", has to fit 3 basic criterion for it to hold as fair/reasonable: 1. It needs to thoroughly be proven,with full supply chains tracked in the item & it's replacement, that whatever is being pushed is in fact " better" in that regard.2. The replacement item needs to work just as well for it's tasks as what it's replacing, without negative health/medical effects to product users.3. It's financial cost to consumers isn't prohibitively expensive in comparison. (This isn't to say that no cost raise is acceptable but for a comparable use time as what it's replacing, it can't be double or more the price.) #EnvironmentalProtection
       
 (DIR) Post #AxN3MEMUZjpmfU0ScS by BrahmaBelarusian@regenerate.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I don't think I've ever seen an item/action that actually passes these criterion, including electric cars, electric mowers, single use plastic bag bans, bamboo disposable utensils/bowls/plates/towels & more than a few others....To be clear: I'm not at all against changing items if better really are developed & I'm not at all denying that pollution problems don't & overuse of raw materials doesn't happen, but coercion &/or forcing people to use new(er) technologies that don't meet the above 3 criteria is wrong.