To expand on my last point somewhat, consider plastic items as one example. In the article, the author mentions that some unnamed people [who exactly?] criticize the idea that &quot;the environmental impact of making virgin plastic [are] “minimal,” a conclusion based more on the emissions and energy required to recycle plastic than the fact that the stuff persists in the environment forever.&quot;.<p>Take that last point – plastic &quot;persists in the environment forever&quot; – and let&#x27;s just assume it&#x27;s true (for reasonable interpretations of &quot;forever&quot;). What then are the full costs to manage all of the plastic we produce and use? I&#x27;m fine with making everyone pay (thru a tax, say) for the costs of cleaning-up (almost) all of the plastic that persists in places we&#x27;d rather it not, like the oceans or really any place that&#x27;s not a landfill. If the tax rate required to cover those costs is really high then that&#x27;s a nice reliable signal sent to everyone considering buying something that uses plastic that they should reconsider. Some things presumably would still warrant being made out of plastic, regardless of a high tax rate; others could easily be made out of something else.