3 ms·

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 externa

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?
- imtringued 7y ago
  I don't see the argument. The benefits of fossil fuels are fully accounted for by the free market. The reason why taxing the negative externalities is necessary is because the free market doesn't account for the negative externalities. > it includes costs but not benefits This is completely illogical because the benefits have always been included and nothing can change that other than a complete ban of fossil fuels.

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?
imtringued 7y ago
I don't see the argument. The benefits of fossil fuels are fully accounted for by the free market. The reason why taxing the negative externalities is necessary is because the free market doesn't account for the negative externalities. > it includes costs but not benefits This is completely illogical because the benefits have always been included and nothing can change that other than a complete ban of fossil fuels.