Conspicuous consumption != "Bad for the environment"
2007-10-15 · Original WordPress address
I'm cranky today, but what's with lumping in all bourgeois consumption patterns with consumption that's "bad for the environment"? That an SVU driver drinks bottled water doesn't automatically mean it kills baby Polar Bears.
For me "bad for the environment" should mean "has significant negative net externalities" ((This is what I mean when I say "net".)). Yeah, maybe shipping Fijian tap water half way across the world uses oil, but the negative externality is in the oil-based transportation, not in the drinking of the water.
If we found a carbon-neutral way to transport the bottled water, bottled water wouldn't be bad for the environment.
UPDATE: More on the theme: Prices will save the day.