On a recent trip to New Orleans, I found myself in a political conversation with a Nebraskan- which, as many political conversations do, ended with us agreeing to disagree. At the conclusion of our conversation, I attributed our differences of opinion to our individual prioritization of the issues. My unmoved stance, I claimed, was the product of climate and environmental issues maintaining high status in my personal agenda.

His face lit up upon hearing this statement and he quickly followed up. His eager inflection seemed to frame a loaded question, as though he had caught me in a philosophical trap:

“But, let me ask you, do you drive a car?”

I have heard responses of this nature before, and I immediately knew his train of thought. He confirmed my suspicions by reiterating the argument to me in his own words. The argument goes along the lines of:

“Cars are a major contributor of pollutants. Pollutants have a negative impact on the environment. If you drive a car, you are then personally responsible for adding disproportionate levels of pollution to the environment. You are just as much of the ‘problem’ as the next average U.S. citizen.”

Several common fallacies haunt this line of thinking. A sweeping generalization is being made by asserting that the combination of necessities, intentions, and impacts of a specific individual will proportionately reflect that of the general masses. Assuming what is true of the whole will be true of a part in this instance could lead to substantial theoretical inefficiencies. Individuals and their set of preferences and how and why these preferences are attained vary greatly and would thus have diverse implications for the environment.

Faulty analogy is another relevant fallacy for similar reasons: givers and receivers of any set of rules may not have the same perceptions, intentions, or results as the other group. This assumption is concerning because it blurs the line between those responsible for institutional guidance and those who are subject to it. With these lines blurred, addressing problems within the system becomes difficult and ineffective.

The fallacy of bifurcation in the argument assumes that one cannot be environmentally conscious or active and also be a car owner, which is simply not true. Individual preference sets are complicated and are not always mutually exclusive. In an upcoming article, I will further explain fallacies and how they apply in other discourse.

So if the argument isn’t valid, then what is the correct response? How can one support the environment without having guilt from driving a car around town?

The answer is in standard microeconomics, or the choices individuals make and their consequences. A core concept in microeconomics is that an individual is not expected to behave in a way that puts himself at a tangible disadvantage for the sake of maintaining a higher moral ground than his peers. In today’s terms of environmentalism and consumerism, this means that the average person cannot, or will not, put an extra $10,000 down to get a more eco-friendly car, or shift their sleep schedule to reduce electricity use, or pay extra for local produce and meats instead of brand-name mass produced foods.

The demands of contemporary life and competition on an overcrowded planet are too high for such a sacrifice to be made without exceptional wealth and devotion to the cause. The operations of the private sector put a high price on environmental compassion; if there are no limiting regulations, profit maximization will occur via lowest production costs possible regardless of environmental impact.

This is why it must be the public sector’s responsibility to be a liaison between the private sector and consumers, enabling long term environmental stability at the cost of the producers, because they are the ones profiting from the lack of environmental recognition. Producers must take responsibility for the costs of their success, instead of subjecting the often-poor consumer, making choices in congruence with making ends meet, to the long term environmental costs. The environment is a public good and the damage done by unregulated private industries is catastrophic and often disproportionate in its effects upon citizens. The government must work with the private sector in order to lend a compassionate and humanized approach to industry regulation instead of letting decisions be driven purely by profit maximization.

The economic displacements caused by the private sector leading the fight against climate change and other environmental and moral issues is far greater than the short term losses anticipated in an economy when the government steps in and establishes new regulations. New regulations often cause shifts in the production and supply side of the economy.

I will use a simple example to demonstrate this concept: the market for free range, organic chicken eggs. Keep in mind that the concepts illustrated by this example are parallel to contemporary cars and the budding industry for more eco-friendly cars. I am choosing to use a simpler example in this explanation because of the nuances and complexities that come with discussing a highly technological and fairly new market, which I do not want to interfere with the basic notions.

There is no government decree stating that all eggs need to be free range, organic chicken eggs. There are regulations and definitions for labelling, but this is not the issue at hand. Both free range, organic eggs, and caged, non-organic eggs are allowed to exist in this market. A consumer pays a premium for the ethics of free range, and the supposed health benefits of organic products. A consumer who is more pressed for resources has the option to save more money and receive the unethically produced, less healthy version of the product.

With both products coexisting, there is no massive initial shock to the market. If suddenly the government were to ban caged, non-organic eggs, the shock to the market would be experienced through bottlenecked supply causing increased prices, leading to a decrease in demand until the market can restabilize its physical capital, costs, prices, and demand. All consumers equally endure the market shock and then all receive the benefit when prices stabilize and cheaper, healthier, more ethical eggs are being consumed across the demographic board.

But the fact remains that there is no ban on cheap, caged, non-organic eggs. The private sector thus produces both types of eggs and makes up for the lost profit margins for higher quality products with higher prices. Win-win, right? Every consumer and each portion of the industry gets what they want or need.

Maybe in the short term, at least.

If left unchecked, many private markets can lead to dangerous gentrification. A prime example exists in the current state of the grocery industry in the United States. Stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s boast wholesome, organic, ethical foods, at a slightly greater cost than your regular old chain grocery store. Your regular old chain grocery store boasts convenience in their low prices.

So those who can afford the better product flock to the end of town where the “good” grocery store is, and enjoy the benefits of healthier, more ethical foods. Those who are of lesser means must be within close range of the cheaper grocery store and pick the cheaper products, yielding them less healthy and ethical foods for themselves and their family. But the negative effects of these cheaper groceries are not only limited to the poor and their families: the environmental consequences of these cheaply produced foods affects everybody, in the long run. Similarly, car pollutants emitted from those who cannot afford sustainable cars in an unregulated market will afford everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status or individual choices.

These types of disproportionate short term effects and long term costs to everyone are not limited to free range organic eggs or groceries or clean-energy vehicles. This is just one simple example of how an unchecked private sector can have abhorrent effects for socioeconomic equality and the environment alike. These issues are government responsibility and should be addressed both hastily and carefully.

Both public and private sectors have enough political and financial resources to have adequate acquisition and efficient disbursement of news and science related the climate change and other environmental issues. However the private sector only has the motivation to use said information if the knowledge is effectively recognized by and concerning to the aggregate consumer base. The vast majority of the consumer base, unfortunately, is not well versed in environmental issues, climate change issues, or ways to live a more sustainable lifestyle. Therefore there is a very big lag and oftentimes complete oversight on facets of demand that would result in a more environmentally progressive economy. Government oversight of these environmental issues and how they relate to markets, and strict enforcement of environmental code compliance, seems to be the best answer to address these market inefficiencies.