3 ms·

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

by roel_v 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago
You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.
- Sleeep 9y ago
  Florida already has energy efficient building codes https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida
- roel_v 9y ago
  Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient. How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles. If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax. Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.
    - criddell 9y ago
      > then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax How is a tax more direct than requiring solar panels?
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Because if we're not accounting for hidden costs in product A, a direct approach is to raise the price on product A (through taxes in this case) so the costs aren't hidden anymore. An indirect action would be to regulate product B counting on some chain of events to resolve the issue.
        criddell 9y ago
        > a direct approach is to raise the price on product A That's only direct if the problem you are trying to solve is increasing the price of A. If you are trying to reduce the amount of A used, a direct action would be restricting the amount of A you can buy. If you are trying to get homes to use solar energy, nothing is more direct than requiring the installation of solar panels.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  Do city governments have the power to tax unclean energy? Or is that more of a state/federal government power?

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

by roel_v 9y ago

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.

Sleeep 9y ago
Florida already has energy efficient building codes https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida
roel_v 9y ago
Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient. How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles. If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax. Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.
  - criddell 9y ago
    > then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax How is a tax more direct than requiring solar panels?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Because if we're not accounting for hidden costs in product A, a direct approach is to raise the price on product A (through taxes in this case) so the costs aren't hidden anymore. An indirect action would be to regulate product B counting on some chain of events to resolve the issue.
      - criddell 9y ago
        > a direct approach is to raise the price on product A That's only direct if the problem you are trying to solve is increasing the price of A. If you are trying to reduce the amount of A used, a direct action would be restricting the amount of A you can buy. If you are trying to get homes to use solar energy, nothing is more direct than requiring the installation of solar panels.
jogjayr 9y ago
Do city governments have the power to tax unclean energy? Or is that more of a state/federal government power?