What is the best way to protect the environment? Basically, there are two groups who give two different answers to this question. The answers they give depend on how they think the worth of nature can be determined. One group insist that the value of an untouched rain-forest, for example, or of an unpolluted river, simply cannot be calculated in terms of money. Such things, they therefore argue, must be protected from any industrial or economic use. Thus, they think the best way of saving the environment is to pass strong laws against pollution and the unwise use of nature.
The other group, however, say that it is better to rely upon market forces to achieve the same goal. They believe that it is possible to calculate how much the environment is worth; for example, according to their figures, pollution costs Europe five per cent of its GNP. They think that this cost should be paid by those who cause the pollution. In other words, companies should be taxed according to how much pollution they cause, so that they will be encouraged to use cleaner technologies and make cleaner products. If they don't do this, they will go out of business, because if polluting products cost more, people will buy fewer of them. Pollution taxes of this kind would send a signal to industrialists and consumers that pollution does not make economic sense, while the prevention of pollution does.