3 ms·
That might be true, but what people actually want may not be the same as the most proximate cause of what they want. For instance, if all carbon emissions were
by baddox 8y ago
That might be true, but what people actually want may not be the same as the most proximate cause of what they want. For instance, if all carbon emissions were required to be carbon-neutral, then carbon emission on its own isn’t so bad. If the cost of every gallon of gas includes the cost of sequestering the same amount of carbon that the gas will emit, then who really cares how much gas is burned?
- dymk 8y agoI don't think we're disagreeing on anything quite yet - if gas included the cost to offset all externalities from burning (not just carbon cost), but nox, ecological damage from drilling, transportation impact, sequestering airborne carbon near where it's burned, we'd probably be fine. But gas isn't priced that way, because we don't do all of the above to offset its effect on our cities and the environment. So we're continuing to impose more disincentives to burn gas.
- baddox 8y agoI’m in agreement. I just also approve of moving the externality adjustment closer and closer to its direct source as technology and processes make it efficient to do so.