6 ms·
>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy
by slg 7y ago
>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants.
If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishonest. We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change and the only reason to say this is to buy political cover for the real motivation.
>While it instructs states to reduce emissions, the new measure sets no targets. Instead, it gives states broad latitude to decide how much carbon reduction they consider reasonable and suggests ways to improve efficiency at individual power plants.
That is always a great way to get things done, just leave everything up to what others think is "reasonable".
- RandomTisk 7y agoWhat major interest groups in the US oppose Nuclear energy? Curious what Nuclear is up against, since it seems like the logical choice to phase out coal in 25 years or so.
- hirundo 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_Uni... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_U... They include most environmental organizations, e.g. Sierra Club and Greenpeace.
- dexterdog 7y agoThen those are not environmental organization. They are political ones.
- panopticon 7y agoI don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. An effective environmental organization is going to engage in politics; that doesn't make it a non-environmental organization.
- dexterdog 7y agoAn environmental org is concerned about the environment. If they are anti-nuke that is almost always for political reasons and not environmental ones.
- panopticon 7y agoNuclear energy does pose environmental risks though--specifically with respect to mining, spent fuel storage, failure scenarios and decommissioning. Now you can make the case that the benefits outweigh the environmental impacts (I personally think this is the case), but to imply there aren't valid environmental reasons to be against nuclear energy is ignorant at best.
- dexterdog 7y agoEvery 'green' energy out there also poses environmental risks as well, but those are played down while the risks of nuclear are exaggerated.
- acdha 7y agoThat’s a very blithe dismissal of a real problem, especially lacking any sort of supporting evidence and analysis. For example, the current U. S. spent fuel storage crisis would seem worth addressing since that’s a long-term problem if it goes wrong.
- dexterdog 7y agoCalling it a crisis is just the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about. Sure, it's an issue and politically there are myriad interests that keep the problem from being solved. Some of those interests have a motive to keep nuclear looking worse than it is by manufacturing crises around it like this.
- ausbah 7y ago>We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change and the only reason to say this is to buy political cover for the real motivation. Would it be fair to say that free markets answer externalities, but only when they become so severe that the market producing the externatlities itself becomes degraded? Not really an exception to your statement, more of a ludicrous technicality.
- slg 7y agoIf Big Oil/Coal pushes us to the point that climate change is on the verge of causing the collapse of civilization as we know it, I am sure they will react in some way. So your point is probably both ludicrous and fair. Although that just leads to a semantic debate because the externality would then be internalized since the people in the market would be directly impacted to the same degree that people outside the market would be. Either way, it is idiotic to wait around twiddling our thumps long enough to find out.
- rayiner 7y agoNo. The idea of the market is that local, free transactions will produce a globally optimal outcome. But even within idealized models, free transactions only lead to optimal outcomes where the cost of externalities is charged to the activities that produce them. Otherwise, the economy will produce more of the activity than the efficient level.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago> We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what your time frame is, and how much other carbon is added on top of it, the answer might vary by two orders of magnitude.
- slg 7y ago>Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The way you normally do that is through government regulation which this policy is completely abdicating. >The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what your time frame is, and how much other carbon is added on top of it, the answer might vary by two orders of magnitude. These are all things that are perfectly reasonable to debate. I have no complaints if you have logically reached a "fair price" that is drastically smaller than the "fair price" I have reached. That is not what this administration is arguing. This administration is arguing that "fair price" is already baked into the market. That is an indefensible position.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago> The way you normally do that is through government regulation... I wouldn't call it regulation. I would call it a tax or a fee. (Of course, there would have to be a regulation that controls the tax or the fee, but the point isn't regulation. The point is to collect the money.) > ... which this policy is completely abdicating. No argument.
- mariushn 7y agoBesides this, state influences though "forces of the market" through subsidies, according to it's own interests: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-f...