An incredibly long line in the McDonald’s drive thru seems to never stop people from waiting, long bus rides into the city to carry out everyday life and the shocking products that people seem to purchase because, why not? Why not let the dollars do the talking and worry about the sacrifices later? Why not rely on those who purchase from the green corporations so others can purchase from the brown? Why not let the problem of greenhouse gases and global climate change to await future generations? We as consumers are perhaps unaware of the negative externalities brought about by the transaction between two parties affecting the third. I may fix up my yard to create a positive externality to those in my neighborhood, however my neighbor may purchase
…show more content…
I disagree with Bowie in the sense that we as consumers accept the harm done to society. The problem that lies here with consumers is that their purchasing decisions don’t always directly correlate with their emotions. I certainly don’t agree with corporations polluting, but I cannot simply afford to say what I want with the money I have. I don’t agree with fast food yet I am forced to buy it because that is what my wallet tells me I can afford as a college student. This can then bring up one of Bowie’s complications of market failure described as the free-rider problem. The free rider problem is essentially a way to cheat the system by trying to benefit solely off the people who are changing their lifestyles for the better so that I don’t have to alter mine. Let’s say that my car is an extreme polluter but I don’t want to buy an eco-friendly car, I would rather rely on other peoples buying decisions for less polluting cars. The problem that arises here is that when everyone is trying to rely on someone else’s positive purchasing decisions, we have no one actually doing it which creates a disconnect. …show more content…
As a direct response to Bowie’s article, Bustos and Arnold offer two additional requirements to the already stated five suggested by Bowie. The first is that corporations must protect the environment beyond what is required by the law and also that they must compensate those who have been harmed after 2001. The latter half of the article identifies, “Five of the most substantial objections, focusing in particular on the roles of business organizations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors regarding GCC” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). According to Bustos and Arnold, our preferences are not always displayed in purchasing decisions because of the lack of options, lack of money and lack of understanding. These three issues can contribute to consumers purchasing products that harm the environment without them even knowing it. “It is unreasonable to believe that most consumers have an accurate understanding of the causes of global climate change, or an accurate understanding of the role of their own consumer choices regarding global climate change” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). The unfortunate part is that when looking at the transportation and electricity sectors, they “Typically have a sophisticated understanding both of GCC and the extent to which their own production, products and services contribute to GCC” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). The point here is that
I disagree with Bowie in the sense that we as consumers accept the harm done to society. The problem that lies here with consumers is that their purchasing decisions don’t always directly correlate with their emotions. I certainly don’t agree with corporations polluting, but I cannot simply afford to say what I want with the money I have. I don’t agree with fast food yet I am forced to buy it because that is what my wallet tells me I can afford as a college student. This can then bring up one of Bowie’s complications of market failure described as the free-rider problem. The free rider problem is essentially a way to cheat the system by trying to benefit solely off the people who are changing their lifestyles for the better so that I don’t have to alter mine. Let’s say that my car is an extreme polluter but I don’t want to buy an eco-friendly car, I would rather rely on other peoples buying decisions for less polluting cars. The problem that arises here is that when everyone is trying to rely on someone else’s positive purchasing decisions, we have no one actually doing it which creates a disconnect. …show more content…
As a direct response to Bowie’s article, Bustos and Arnold offer two additional requirements to the already stated five suggested by Bowie. The first is that corporations must protect the environment beyond what is required by the law and also that they must compensate those who have been harmed after 2001. The latter half of the article identifies, “Five of the most substantial objections, focusing in particular on the roles of business organizations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors regarding GCC” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). According to Bustos and Arnold, our preferences are not always displayed in purchasing decisions because of the lack of options, lack of money and lack of understanding. These three issues can contribute to consumers purchasing products that harm the environment without them even knowing it. “It is unreasonable to believe that most consumers have an accurate understanding of the causes of global climate change, or an accurate understanding of the role of their own consumer choices regarding global climate change” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). The unfortunate part is that when looking at the transportation and electricity sectors, they “Typically have a sophisticated understanding both of GCC and the extent to which their own production, products and services contribute to GCC” (Arnold & Bustos, 527). The point here is that