Obvioulsly, not every person would be able to contribute literally more than a million dollars to counteract GW. But that is the real cost, per capita, on average. Obviously large corporations will have to pick up the slack and pay for more, ( taxes, tariffs, fees, etc. ) and pass that cost along to the consumers in increased prices for goods and services. The increased cost of doing business may slow trade at addtional cost to the consumer, and increased prices may deny the poor from receiving some goods and services.

Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?

If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.

This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.

So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.

-John