The value of anthropocentric indirect arguments (AIAs), as stated by Elliott (2014), is to focus on non-environmental benefits that derive from actions or policies that also benefit the environment. The key difference with these indirect arguments—from more direct anthropocentric arguments—is they focus on human benefits unrelated to the environment. So, for example, less coal burning power plants means less respiratory illness and higher worker productivity. The air is cleaner, but rather than clean air being the goal in arguing for less coal burning power plants, healthier people is the goal. Or as Elliott notes, clean energy can create jobs, and energy efficiency in military operations can save taxpayer money.