4 ms·

If you want to play that game then sure. They factor in what they should have been paid because of externalities. What should then be deducted because of the

If you want to play that game then sure. They factor in what they should have been paid because of externalities. What should then be deducted because of the positive externalities? All the positive things that are the very reason why most of us are even alive today which is a direct consequence of fossil fuel. Without fossil fuels, we would be living like they do in the poor areas of the world.

triceratops 7y ago
The positive externalities already have a market value i.e. people are willing to pay for them and already do so.
- AndrewGaspar 7y ago
  The market value is lower than the maximum value that would be paid for fossil fuels because pretty intense competition drives the price down pretty close to marginal costs. Fossil fuels (obviously) aren't capturing all of the value they produce.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Then they wouldn't be externalities.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    I looked up the definition of externality again - you're right. Then there are no positive externalities of fossil fuels. All of their benefits are already priced into their cost. Otherwise someone would be profiting off the arbitrage no?
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      There are so many positive externalities that it's not even possible for me to list all of them but let me give you a couple of examples. Our use of fossil fuels secures: Safer environments: (access to water, safer buildings, the ability to build infrastructure, healthier citizens, food supply security) The ability to innovate: No matter which innovation you want to talk about it requires fossil fuels, without fossil fuels no ability to innovate like we don. All of the alternative energy developments require access to fossil fuels). Dual use. You can use oil from so many different things pesticides, plastic, energy, medicin, building materials, steel and I could go on. This is from the same "mining" of one material. What do you think it would cost the environment if you had to pick different material up for each of the things fossil fuels can be used as. These are advantages not built into the price of oil. You don't pay for that but that's what you get. There is currently no realistic useful alternative to fossil fuels and no person I know who started looking into this came out negative about fossil fuels. Yes, there are some negative consequences as with all other things we do in life but they are by far dwarfed by the positive attributes. Nature doesn't give us a safe and friendly environment we made unsafely, it gave us a hostile and dangerous environment we through our use of fossil fuels have managed to make much much safer.

triceratops 7y ago

The positive externalities already have a market value i.e. people are willing to pay for them and already do so.

AndrewGaspar 7y ago
The market value is lower than the maximum value that would be paid for fossil fuels because pretty intense competition drives the price down pretty close to marginal costs. Fossil fuels (obviously) aren't capturing all of the value they produce.
ThomPete 7y ago
Then they wouldn't be externalities.
- triceratops 7y ago
  I looked up the definition of externality again - you're right. Then there are no positive externalities of fossil fuels. All of their benefits are already priced into their cost. Otherwise someone would be profiting off the arbitrage no?
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    There are so many positive externalities that it's not even possible for me to list all of them but let me give you a couple of examples. Our use of fossil fuels secures: Safer environments: (access to water, safer buildings, the ability to build infrastructure, healthier citizens, food supply security) The ability to innovate: No matter which innovation you want to talk about it requires fossil fuels, without fossil fuels no ability to innovate like we don. All of the alternative energy developments require access to fossil fuels). Dual use. You can use oil from so many different things pesticides, plastic, energy, medicin, building materials, steel and I could go on. This is from the same "mining" of one material. What do you think it would cost the environment if you had to pick different material up for each of the things fossil fuels can be used as. These are advantages not built into the price of oil. You don't pay for that but that's what you get. There is currently no realistic useful alternative to fossil fuels and no person I know who started looking into this came out negative about fossil fuels. Yes, there are some negative consequences as with all other things we do in life but they are by far dwarfed by the positive attributes. Nature doesn't give us a safe and friendly environment we made unsafely, it gave us a hostile and dangerous environment we through our use of fossil fuels have managed to make much much safer.