> What if "safe for the environment" isn't just another brand that you can choose to buy if you're willing to pay the extra dollar?
But "safe for the environment" is a brand that you can choose to buy. Every environmental damage can be offset.
I'd reverse the question: what if solving global warming is something that can be achieved without outlawing anything, including SUVs, plastic garbage and wasteful lawns? Certain people perceive global warming as an opportunity to reshape society in their preferred image; (visibly) ecologically conscious, "green", friendly, local, low power, low consumption, etc. This can be seen in the discourse around technological megaengineering solutions to global warming, such as a space sunshade - usually you will find in the comments someone saying "but then we'll just keep burning fossil fuels!" Yeah, so? I thought this was about warming?
> Loss of biodiversity? Sea level change? Loss of ice sheets? You can't pay a tax somewhere and unshatter that glass.
Sea level change and ice sheets are a result of climate change and thus can be offset with carbon offsets; they're the poster child for the concept.
I don't recognize loss of biodiversity as damage.
> Oh, not even close, not if even if there were less than 1 billion humans on Earth. None of those things is sustainable in the long run.
Those things are negligible footnotes in the long run. And all of those things, including the plastic bags, can be run off solar. All it needs are the right incentives.
Instead, we should try for environmental regulation to be as unnoticeable to the individual as possible.
The unwarranted fetishization of restricted living is a central part of the green movement's image problem.