3 ms·

This is an argument detached from two realities: (1) that fossil fuels receive enormous subsidies in the US and worldwide, and (2) that there is an enormous imp

This is an argument detached from two realities: (1) that fossil fuels receive enormous subsidies in the US and worldwide, and (2) that there is an enormous impact of CO2 on global climate, health, and ecosystems (not to mention the local environmental and health impacts of coal mining and fracking). When accounting for these costs, it becomes increasingly dishonest to claim that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables.

mbostleman 11y ago
That may or may not be the case, but the claims that these systems are "cheaper" prey on economic ignorance.
- dafrankenstein2 11y ago
  Mind your comment and wait and see what will happen after 20 years
  - freehunter 11y ago
    20 years doesn't change their price today.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      No, only make the world better for our kids, with a small premium to pay today instead of loaning from the future...
      - freehunter 11y ago
        Oh so now we're talking about morals. I thought just a minute ago we were talking about dollars.
        coldtea 11y ago
        I wasn't. This was my first comment. And for me morals trump over dollars everytime. Not to mention that huge ecological damage also has cost someone will have to pay eventually. So as long as you still believe in your country (which will pay its toll) or your children (which will pay their toll) from that, there's a hidden cost there too.
        freehunter 11y ago
        I'm sorry but you jumped into the middle of a conversation and completely changed the subject so you could argue something that's been explicitly removed from the discussion. The argument was about "is this cheaper than whatever else". The response was "no but it will be in 20 years". That's the discussion. Yes morality and the environment come into play, but that's not what we're talking about. You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation.
        coldtea 11y ago
        >I'm sorry but you jumped into the middle of a conversation and completely changed the subject so you could argue something that's been explicitly removed from the discussion. First, the discussion is precisly what the "people jumping in" contribute. This is not some closed circle of pre-determined friends, it's a public forum. Anybody can jump in. Note how the subthread wasn't even about the original post (Project Sunroof) in the first place, it had been diverted in discussing costs. Second, I don't see how saying essentially monetary costs are inferior to environmental costs is "changing the subject" much less "completely". It's still about costs in general, and it's still about monetary costs in particular (it's about whether the extra monetary costs are worth the environmental impact, and it's also about the hidden indirect monetary costs from environmental damage). >You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation. In your contrived example, what Lennon did to his wife has no relation to impact of Beatles on the music recording technology. Whereas environmental costs are still costs (and even have a dollar value, even if implicit). Plus, they are still something to think about when deciding if something is "too expensive" or not. So nothing like what you suggest at all. Do you only check the price to determine "expensiveness"? Not build quality, materials, features, and among them, social issues, like environmental impact and working conditions?
- Daishiman 11y ago
  If you ignore externalities, sure. But that's not how the realities of climate change and pollution work.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The reality is the reverse of what you state. The people who think our current use of coal is "cheaper" are economically ignorant, as it generates many dollars of externalities in pollution that affect health. That cost is born by taxpayers, so by avoiding it, the country saves money and in return passes some on to the person with solar on their roof. I personally would prefer the more direct and elegant solution of a revenue neutral carbon (& GHG) tax, rather than the current tangle of overlapping regulations, but the immediate result would be the same, people with solar installations would be better off than those who didn't since they'd not need to pay the cost of carbon for electricity they generate themselves.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  If you don't know if this is the case, how can you say that you know that this systems are not cheaper?

mbostleman 11y ago

That may or may not be the case, but the claims that these systems are "cheaper" prey on economic ignorance.

dafrankenstein2 11y ago
Mind your comment and wait and see what will happen after 20 years
- freehunter 11y ago
  20 years doesn't change their price today.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    No, only make the world better for our kids, with a small premium to pay today instead of loaning from the future...
    - freehunter 11y ago
      Oh so now we're talking about morals. I thought just a minute ago we were talking about dollars.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        I wasn't. This was my first comment. And for me morals trump over dollars everytime. Not to mention that huge ecological damage also has cost someone will have to pay eventually. So as long as you still believe in your country (which will pay its toll) or your children (which will pay their toll) from that, there's a hidden cost there too.
        freehunter 11y ago
        I'm sorry but you jumped into the middle of a conversation and completely changed the subject so you could argue something that's been explicitly removed from the discussion. The argument was about "is this cheaper than whatever else". The response was "no but it will be in 20 years". That's the discussion. Yes morality and the environment come into play, but that's not what we're talking about. You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation.
        coldtea 11y ago
        >I'm sorry but you jumped into the middle of a conversation and completely changed the subject so you could argue something that's been explicitly removed from the discussion. First, the discussion is precisly what the "people jumping in" contribute. This is not some closed circle of pre-determined friends, it's a public forum. Anybody can jump in. Note how the subthread wasn't even about the original post (Project Sunroof) in the first place, it had been diverted in discussing costs. Second, I don't see how saying essentially monetary costs are inferior to environmental costs is "changing the subject" much less "completely". It's still about costs in general, and it's still about monetary costs in particular (it's about whether the extra monetary costs are worth the environmental impact, and it's also about the hidden indirect monetary costs from environmental damage). >You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation. In your contrived example, what Lennon did to his wife has no relation to impact of Beatles on the music recording technology. Whereas environmental costs are still costs (and even have a dollar value, even if implicit). Plus, they are still something to think about when deciding if something is "too expensive" or not. So nothing like what you suggest at all. Do you only check the price to determine "expensiveness"? Not build quality, materials, features, and among them, social issues, like environmental impact and working conditions?
Daishiman 11y ago
If you ignore externalities, sure. But that's not how the realities of climate change and pollution work.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
The reality is the reverse of what you state. The people who think our current use of coal is "cheaper" are economically ignorant, as it generates many dollars of externalities in pollution that affect health. That cost is born by taxpayers, so by avoiding it, the country saves money and in return passes some on to the person with solar on their roof. I personally would prefer the more direct and elegant solution of a revenue neutral carbon (& GHG) tax, rather than the current tangle of overlapping regulations, but the immediate result would be the same, people with solar installations would be better off than those who didn't since they'd not need to pay the cost of carbon for electricity they generate themselves.
tobltobs 11y ago
If you don't know if this is the case, how can you say that you know that this systems are not cheaper?