I agree with this as a general solution - if it's easier/cheaper to do the bad thing, then we use law/taxes to change the incentives.
Here's a couple counterarguments I hear a lot:
1) "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them". I think we've seen that choices are influenced by the environment and not largely within the control of any random individual. People are rational actors relative to their situation but that can often mean choices that aren't rational in a larger context.
2) "Too expensive - some people need the cheaper to produce products". I think this is where markets are useful, we should be able to switch up the landscape and have the gaps filled. I think the big risk here is not having appropriate social safety nets in place to cover people while there are still gaps.
3) "Laws should be about what's 'right', not a way to control people". This seems like ultimately the same thing, someone decides what's 'right' and then makes it a law so other people will do it. We generally agree murder is wrong but it get's a lot more hazy with stuff like taxes and clear that it's a way to incentivize behavior.
> "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them"
Another counter-argument by example: if people choose to smoke and I sit in their second-hand smoke I suffer the consequences of their actions. Similarly, plastic waste is not a problem that stops at the individual.
The whole "personal responsibily" argument has always been a lame excuse by companies to offload responsibility to the customer.
it annoys me a lot: media appeals to personal responsibility a lot; people in my area disregards those who ostendebly cares for sustainability, saying they're weird as not following the herd, and "one single man can not switch the tide" attitude. which if you respond to like "why don't you do it too?" - they reply "others would reckon me weird"; so not "because that certain behaviur does not make sense". These people calims a heigher power, ie. government, should step in and regulate. The same people who gets utterly rebelious if they face a slightest little new regulation in any area.
Here's a couple counterarguments I hear a lot:
1) "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them". I think we've seen that choices are influenced by the environment and not largely within the control of any random individual. People are rational actors relative to their situation but that can often mean choices that aren't rational in a larger context.
2) "Too expensive - some people need the cheaper to produce products". I think this is where markets are useful, we should be able to switch up the landscape and have the gaps filled. I think the big risk here is not having appropriate social safety nets in place to cover people while there are still gaps.
3) "Laws should be about what's 'right', not a way to control people". This seems like ultimately the same thing, someone decides what's 'right' and then makes it a law so other people will do it. We generally agree murder is wrong but it get's a lot more hazy with stuff like taxes and clear that it's a way to incentivize behavior.