6 ms·
> require a total net power draw for the home Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her nee
by ams6110 9y ago
> require a total net power draw for the home
Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.
- mrfusion 9y agoYeah a tax on electricity would make the most sense.
- bhickey 9y agoA tax on carbon fuel would make more sense still. Polluters should pay for their pollution rather than foisting their externalities on others.
- SteveGerencser 9y agoExcept, how do you get to choose what type of power you buy? What if I live back east and would happily pay for wind or solar but my only option is coal or natural gas?
- mhb 9y agoThe same way you've chosen to live in a (cheaper) house without all the earthquake resistance requirements. Part of the decision-making basket you evaluate in deciding to live somewhere includes the cost of energy with the cost of its externalities.
- toss1 9y agoIn many states back east (at leas Massachusetts and New Hampshire), you can choose who is your energy supplier, as the distributor and provider are separate items on the bill. There are several "green energy" suppliers vying for your business. This is great but has the unfortunate side-effect of some energy suppliers telemarketing to try to get you to switch to their "lower rates", which inevitably increase again after a few months. So check the system in your state, you may be pleasantly surprised.
- bhickey 9y agoAs toss1 mentioned, some states let you choose your supplier. Another way to do it is to tax it when the utility buys it. This moves the math around for where they source power from.
- debacle 9y agoSolar is not pollution free.
- jedberg 9y agoYeah because who cares about those poor people who need electric to live, right? Most people don't realize that if you tax the externalities, that is basically a regressive tax on the poor.
- bhickey 9y agoThat's why basically every carbon tax scheme ever proposed involves remitting the revenue back to people on a per capita basis.
- jedberg 9y agoRemitting on a per capita basis doesn't change the regressive nature. You can only fix the regressive nature if you return it based on income. And even then, the poorest people don't have the float necessary to pay for the bill now and get a tax refund later.
- bhickey 9y agoThere seems to be some confusion. Wealthy people typically have a larger carbon footprint than those who aren't well off. Think flights, buying a car more frequently, etc. If everyone has the same carbon footprint, the tax is strictly neutral. If people have different footprints, money flows from polluters to non-polluters.
- Dylan16807 9y agoThe tax not being regressive was already addressed, so I'll note that there's no need for float. The remit can be built into the energy bill.
- widdma 9y agoYup, and make dirty power more expensive with a carbon tax.
- jpk 9y agoThat's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more energy for less money.
- jriot 9y agoWho wants less energy for more money?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoProbably everyone born in the next 100 years who will be subject to the externalities we currently allow.
- gascan 9y agoPerhaps people who like good air quality
- samb1729 9y agoEarth
- awalton 9y ago> Who wants less energy for more money? There are a lot of nutjobs running around saying they want Coal back, the President of the United States, for example, despite Coal being more expensive than Solar now. So, to answer your question in earnest, Fossil Fuel Energy Companies and their bought-and-paid elected officials.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThose aren't people thst want less energy for more money, those are people that want to sell less energy for more money. The people that want less energy for more (immediate) money are the people that want external costs priced into retail energy prices, but that's just because they don't want environmental damage to be treated as a non-cost.
- viraptor 9y agoThis makes sense if people living in the house are the owners, but it's completely opposite for rentals. The owner may be keen to invest in lower future bills. But if they're just renting, why would they care? The bills don't come to them and they still get the same in rent. It could work for rentals if there was enough empty places that people could be picky about the energy efficiency of the houses they rent, but that's likely not the current situation.
- autokad 9y agomake it easier for renters to know how much they will pay in utilities.