If renewables are now so cheap, why do they still need government subsidies and mandates?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @pmddomingos
Good question. Markets can be very efficient but one weakness is externalities, e.g. pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality … A standard way to address externalities while preserving markets is via taxes or subsidies. That way, is often more efficient than direct regulation.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @erikbryn
Yes, but if renewables are cheaper they should prevail even without externality taxes and subsidies. Unless the problem is that they're worse (e.g., less reliable, hidden costs, etc.).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @pmddomingos
There's a continuum of uses. When there are externalities, markets do not settle on the optimal set of choices (except in corner solutions). Taxes and subsidies allow the "invisible hand" of decentralized business and consumer choices to settle on the optimal mix of uses.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @erikbryn
Yes, and what I'm pointing out is that, since even with these taxes and subsidies renewables are overwhelmingly not being chosen by the market, they're a lot worse than they're made out to be.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @pmddomingos ja @erikbryn
Also, the externalities of fossil fuels have been greatly overestimated and those of renewables underestimated, so large subsidies and taxes favoring the latter are bad, but that's a separate point.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @pmddomingos
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.
2 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 10 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @erikbryn
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.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @pmddomingos
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/ …
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @erikbryn ja @pmddomingos
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.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
No, you're misinterpreting my question. My point is that the lack of adoption of renewables despite their supposed low cost *and* all the subsidies and mandates is evidence that they're not so good. Unless you think markets are dumb.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.