4 ms·
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 consumer
by 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 agoBecause 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.