3 ms·
Why cant we factor in the human life and geopolitical costs in to fossil fuel cost? The only valid argument in the economist's mind to regulate a market is to
by wallace_f 9y ago
Why cant we factor in the human life and geopolitical costs in to fossil fuel cost?
The only valid argument in the economist's mind to regulate a market is to remedy market failures. Fossil fuel addiction create externalities like smog, global warming, and war; but no consumer has to pay for those costs at the pump. Instead, they're shouldered by the taxpayer, future generations, and direct casualties. So we have a classic, textbook market failure here.
If we really add up the true cost of fossil fuels it makes wind look clearly better.
- an_account 9y agoThat’s clearly not what this article is about. But on the subject that you’re talking about, it would be great if the US started phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
- wallace_f 9y agoThe case for wind that the article argued for can be additionally bolstered by the what I just mentioned. I dont see why that's off topic?
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoThe article headline is: "Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It's Getting Cheaper" But their measure of "cheapness" only takes into account direct payments. Once you account for externalities like people dying of lung diseases, global warming etc. the headline would be: "Wind Energy has been the Cheapest Source of Electricity for a while now, and It's still Getting Cheaper" Which is a different thing entirely. For example, an EU study from 2014 already found that onshore Wind was the cheapest available power source, coming in at less than half the price of coal, once you factor in health etc. Once those well established facts are recognized, the whole conversation about "when will wind be cheaper" seems a bit irrelevant. When will the so-called free market stop killing us? would be one alternative headline.