3 ms·

I think the broad point is correct (fossil fuels are a net positive, compared to the gruesome alternative), but I wouldn't say they have net positive externalit

by srl 7y ago

I think the broad point is correct (fossil fuels are a net positive, compared to the gruesome alternative), but I wouldn't say they have net positive externalities. This is a critical distinction. The positive effects of fossil fuels are mostly paid for; some important negative effects are not. As a result, fossil fuels are used more than they should be. Slightly pithier: fossil fuels currently have massive subsidies --- from all the people who pay for them! It's just that that isn't what `subsidy' is usually taken to mean.

roenxi 7y ago
I'm pretty confident on the point here. For a specific example, the Haber process [0] consumes quite a significant amount of natural gas. That and the logistics network of moving the food around is all fossil fuels. If we cut fossil fuels out, and food prices rise the damage goes a bit beyond the measurable short-term economic impact. If the cost of a sea level rise destroying a small island nation is a negative externality, then enabling population growth in a large city (without food riots) is a positive externality. An extrenality is just an impact that goes beyond the immediate buyer and seller; most of the value chain is an externality to a fossil fuel provider who was to be targeted by this hypothetical tax. The argument in essence is that cheap abundant energy always has a bigger positive impact than a first order approximation would suggest. Pretty much the entire industrial revolution was a long chain of "wow, coal is enabling stuff we never imagined" that was certainly not value being directly captured in the buying and selling the miners were doing. The oil & coal companies aren't capturing very much of the value vs what is created. I mean, seriously, nobody can argue that fossil fuels haven't enabled civilisation to move from the 1800s to 2019. In a very practical sense they are the enabler of everything we have; there wouldn't be any positive externalities without them. Fossil fuels, crops, wood, iron & a few other metals are the setup materials for all of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  So, your argument then is that if we ignore all but the least significant negative externalities of fossil fuels, then fossil fuels have mostly positive externalities? Is that a fair summary?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The argument is that "we should tax externalities" is an intellectually lazy justification because it includes costs but not benefits. People should find a better one. We've never used fossil fuels because people have a political love of fossil fuels; we use them because they enable great works. My line is that we should either use the cheapest energy (before any government efforts to pick a winner) or nuclear as the most technically excellent energy source.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > The argument is that "we should tax externalities" is an intellectually lazy justification because it includes costs but not benefits. So far, that doesn't seem to be more than an assertion!? > People should find a better one. So ... because people supposedly justify taxing only the negative externalities by claiming that they are taxing all externalities, they should find a better justification for taxing only the negative externalities (but keep ignoring the positive externalities)? > We've never used fossil fuels because people have a political love of fossil fuels; Another assertion? > we use them because they enable great works. So? How is this rather uncontroversial statement relevant to the question of whether taxing externalities is a good idea and of whether positive externalities are being and/or should be considered when doing so? > My line is that we should either use the cheapest energy (before any government efforts to pick a winner) Does that translate into plain English as "we should ignore all costs that third parties have to pay when determining which energy source is the cheapest"? And if so, would you also say that, say, industry in general should use the cheapest materials and the cheapest equipment, where we also ignore all the costs that third parties have to pay when determining which materials and equipment are cheapest (such as healthcare costs for poisoned/injured/disabled workers or people living close to the factories ...)? Because workplace safety standards or environmental protections are "the government picking a winner"? > or nuclear as the most technically excellent energy source. So ... you suggest that we should use the cheapest source, except for nuclear, which we should use regardless whether it is the cheapesst, because you have decided that it is the most technically excellent energy source?

by srl 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

I'm pretty confident on the point here. For a specific example, the Haber process [0] consumes quite a significant amount of natural gas. That and the logistics network of moving the food around is all fossil fuels. If we cut fossil fuels out, and food prices rise the damage goes a bit beyond the measurable short-term economic impact. If the cost of a sea level rise destroying a small island nation is a negative externality, then enabling population growth in a large city (without food riots) is a positive externality. An extrenality is just an impact that goes beyond the immediate buyer and seller; most of the value chain is an externality to a fossil fuel provider who was to be targeted by this hypothetical tax. The argument in essence is that cheap abundant energy always has a bigger positive impact than a first order approximation would suggest. Pretty much the entire industrial revolution was a long chain of "wow, coal is enabling stuff we never imagined" that was certainly not value being directly captured in the buying and selling the miners were doing. The oil & coal companies aren't capturing very much of the value vs what is created. I mean, seriously, nobody can argue that fossil fuels haven't enabled civilisation to move from the 1800s to 2019. In a very practical sense they are the enabler of everything we have; there wouldn't be any positive externalities without them. Fossil fuels, crops, wood, iron & a few other metals are the setup materials for all of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
So, your argument then is that if we ignore all but the least significant negative externalities of fossil fuels, then fossil fuels have mostly positive externalities? Is that a fair summary?
- roenxi 7y ago
  The argument is that "we should tax externalities" is an intellectually lazy justification because it includes costs but not benefits. People should find a better one. We've never used fossil fuels because people have a political love of fossil fuels; we use them because they enable great works. My line is that we should either use the cheapest energy (before any government efforts to pick a winner) or nuclear as the most technically excellent energy source.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > The argument is that "we should tax externalities" is an intellectually lazy justification because it includes costs but not benefits. So far, that doesn't seem to be more than an assertion!? > People should find a better one. So ... because people supposedly justify taxing only the negative externalities by claiming that they are taxing all externalities, they should find a better justification for taxing only the negative externalities (but keep ignoring the positive externalities)? > We've never used fossil fuels because people have a political love of fossil fuels; Another assertion? > we use them because they enable great works. So? How is this rather uncontroversial statement relevant to the question of whether taxing externalities is a good idea and of whether positive externalities are being and/or should be considered when doing so? > My line is that we should either use the cheapest energy (before any government efforts to pick a winner) Does that translate into plain English as "we should ignore all costs that third parties have to pay when determining which energy source is the cheapest"? And if so, would you also say that, say, industry in general should use the cheapest materials and the cheapest equipment, where we also ignore all the costs that third parties have to pay when determining which materials and equipment are cheapest (such as healthcare costs for poisoned/injured/disabled workers or people living close to the factories ...)? Because workplace safety standards or environmental protections are "the government picking a winner"? > or nuclear as the most technically excellent energy source. So ... you suggest that we should use the cheapest source, except for nuclear, which we should use regardless whether it is the cheapesst, because you have decided that it is the most technically excellent energy source?