"Pushing an overly aggressive "Green Deal" without consideration for economic impacts". Let's say that taking steps to move away from coal is part of this Green Deal. After all, coal is inefficient and bad for the environment. Overall, it may save the economy more money to move away from coal. However, there's an entire region that is dependent on the production of coal. There will be an economic impact in that area. Is an economic impact on any level a deal-breaker?

To me, this is a similar argument to when I hear people say that they're against "regulations" without defining which regulations. The hypothetical example being the factory that dumps it's waste into a river and pollutes the drinking water for those downstream. Doing so will lower the price of their product because they don't have to pay for disposal. The free market isn't going to fix that. If I'm a consumer who isn't downstream, I just want the product for as little as possible. I don't care about the people downstream. In this case, being against regulations benefits more people so let's get rid of them.

Swinging back to the Green Deal idea, moving in that direction may help more people and the economy overall but will adversely effect "those downstream". So we can't move in that direction because of the smaller amount of people adversely effected by the policy.

So, what's the threshold for "consideration for economic impacts"? Is there an acceptable greater good that also hurts some people?

To be honest, I don't expect a response. I respect and appreciate that you actually put thought into your replies.
[Post edited by Cheesesteaker at 01/20/2021 7:01PM]