I think my theory would also work for these specific cases, but there is still a question of whether we can have less production on land alongside a thriving economy? I think we can, again with plant-based diets (needs less land to produce food, needs less water, pollutes less, no feces, and more), and if we have positive externalities, we can use those to develop more innovative solutions to the issue. And I think this ties together with the first chapters about ecological economics. Now, the book and this article by the professor focuses more on land and production/farming. And if they would buy a diesel car anyway, I really doubt that the tax that the government receives goes straight to the fund for developing of better and more innovative electric cars. This may instead lead to the company not buying cars at all, or going for another option. This creates a discouragement for the company to buy cars but does not necessarily encourage them to buy electric cars. An example of why negative externalities should be avoided is if a company gets a tax fee on every corporate diesel car they buy for their employees. Sometimes negative externalities may be the only option but should be avoided as much as it can. For example, if there is a subsidy for companies to buy their employees corporate electrical cars instead of corporate diesel cars, it will create an incentive for the company to do this, they would be environmentally responsible, the employees will be happy, the car manufacturer will get higher sales which will increase their resources to develop better and more innovative electric cars, and the government is happy with less pollution. Positive externalities would be good because it creates a positive circular flow of the money. However, in some cases, I can understand that the negative ones are a must. I think positive externalities is the solution we should emphasize and aim for.

Professor spillo pace university