Yeah I was purely viewing this from an environmental perspective, not an economical one. But you're right. This is of course the reason it's done that way.
I was thinking the same thing. From an environmental point of view, less damage. From an economic point of view, more capital and wealth per person. The only downside is people will need to live longer.
Agree, I am not convinced it is a net benefit for the overall environment. Plus they will consume more energy because of inefficiencies in transport and storage.
But there is still an immense environmental benefit: they will pollute in places (industrial areas, mines) that are not places where people live (big cities). So the population will benefit a lot from moving where the pollution takes place. And it's not just air. Noise pollution, dirty buildings, etc.
OP is saying that there is pollution for both options, and the total cost of that pollution is proportional to the total cost of ownership of the product.
He doesn't provide evidence, but it seems at least plausible.
Improvement isn't always worse for the the environment. Is converting a forest to a parking lot a net negative from an environmental point of view? Yes. Is converting a parking lot to a 5 story residential building a net negative? No, because the parking lot wasn't environmentally friendly to begin with, the residential building doesn't damage the environment any more than the parking lot, and provides much more value to the public than the parking lot for the same environmental cost.
> Also IMHO there is far too much investment in construction, when buildings are already sitting idle.
Unfortunately all the idle buildings are in the wrong places. LVT, plus tax credits for reclaimed materials would at least move them to where they can do the most good.
That strongly depends on where the saved developer resources (which I think are frequently overstated, but that’s another topic) are allocated. If they’re put towards squeezing more ad dollars for example, that’s still a net loss environmentally.
reply