Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to work toward reconciliation of the neoclassical consumer choice axiom that “more is better” and the ecological concern that “more is not sustainable.” The key is to divide the desired “more” into its rival and nonrival components, for it is the consumption of rival goods (such as plastic) that strains the ecosystem. In contrast, the consumption of nonrival goods (such as bird-watching) leaves little to no footprint. While sustainability can be enhanced through changing preferences, a menu of taxes, subsidies and/or vouchers can also motivate greater nonrival consumption—and therefore sustainability—without reducing consumer welfare.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
