I don't think that looking to government policy (which goes beyond regulation) implies that conservation is Somebody Else's Problem (SEP), but rather that it is Everybody's Problem (EP). Not many people will heed the call to ride a bicyle to work if they have to breathe in the exhaust of all their less conscientious neighbours, just as it is hard to justify having just 1.5 children when the family next door has 15, especially when you are paying the same taxes for their education, child allowances, etc.
I am willing to pay $6 or $7 per gallon for gasoline (which I do, like everyone else in Portugal) and see the high price as promoting conservation. But if gasoline were just $3 per gallon, and I were asked to pay an additional $3 or $4 voluntary tax to the government for each gallon so that I would pay the same total price, I would refuse. Furthermore, my individual acts will not have much of an impact on industry (the Japanese water story notwithstanding). I really think we have to find ways to encourage everyone to act more responsibly, and this calls for social policies which governments can implement. Focussing on the individual, and having a small number of people take extreme measures while most of the population continues as before, is not likely to accomplish very much. Bill Silvert Peral, Portugal ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Energy use and blaming > Do we (the Royal we, tapeworms and all) really believe that > government regulations are the best way to modify our behavior? OK I > may be taking this a little too literally, but in my mind this > underscores the public perception that environmental solutions are > Somebody Else's Problem (SEP, Doug Adams; Life, the Universe, and > Everything. 1982).
