If renewables are now so cheap, why do they still need government subsidies and mandates?
-
Here are the best estimates of the pollution cost of fossil fuels: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649 … For coal, the externalities are larger than the entire value added – we’d be better off with zero coal production. As we did with acid rain, lead and cfcs, we can address this.
Yes, coal is a bad polluter, but natural gas is not. And all costs and benefits of each alternative must be considered. On balance, natural gas is currently a better option than renewables.
-
-
Fun fact: originally it was called "unnatural gas" but the name didn't take.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Now your beginning to think like an economist (a compliment in my circles, believe if or not) A great way to make it easy for people to take into account the costs and benefits of alternatives (including externalities) is with Pigouvian taxes:https://taxfoundation.org/tax-basics/pigouvian-tax/ …
-
And that’s the answer to your original question of why we should tax or subsidize different energy sources differently based on how clean they are.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.