Consumers lack an efficient method for assessing the negative consequences that the production and use of these goods and services have on their own health as well as the planet's life-support systems.
The firm benefits, but the environment does not, from the exclusion of environmental and health expenses from the production of goods and services. For instance, a timber business will pay to take down trees but not for habitat destruction or replanting.
Government assistance, resource consumption, and environmental damage are all related. The government provides tax advantages or subsidies to businesses so they may utilize those funds to operate. In turn, this leads to the creation of jobs, which boosts economies. On the other hand, it leads to the destruction and depletion of natural capital.
Here is another question with an answer similar to this about environmental problems: brainly.com/question/10820529
#SPJ4
Healthier lungs and teeth a longer life expectancy a positive role model showing that you do not have to smoke to be cool. Also you would be saving a load more of money that you could use on things that you actually need.<span />
Answer:
Because if you don't and the risks out weigh the benefits something bad could happen.
