13 ms·
> In addition, many people hate highly-energy-efficient washing machines, as the washing cycles takes hours... efficient in energy, but inefficient in human lif
by untog 7y ago
> In addition, many people hate highly-energy-efficient washing machines, as the washing cycles takes hours... efficient in energy, but inefficient in human life.
That's literally the reason for governments to regulate this kind of thing, though. When everyone looks at things through the lens of their own personal life... what's the big deal? Just one person using more energy. But when every person does it, it is a big deal. So government acts to force a level playing field for all. Everyone ignores the cumulative good and instead focuses on the inconvenience to their personal life.
- tomp 7y agoSure lets ban cars and planes too. /s That's obviously the wrong solution. The correct solution is to price things correctly. If energy is precious, increase energy prices. Some people will choose to fly, others will choose to have faster washing cycles...
- untog 7y ago> Some people will choose to fly, others will choose to have faster washing cycles... And all will damage the climate? "Increase energy prices" just means that rich people will be able to continue to engage in undesirable behaviour while the poor will not. Why is that a desirable income? Why should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly? Not all energy use is equal.
- dagw 7y agoWhy should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly That can be solved with tiered pricing. Your first N kWh a month are cheap and then the price ramps up quickly.
- untog 7y agoBut it doesn't solve the pollution problem. Why should a person be allowed to pollute more just because they have more money? Why is their convenience more important than everyone else's well being?
- dagw 7y agoWhy should a person be allowed to pollute more just because they have more money? As long as we make them pay a significantly large enough multiple of the externality costs they're inflicting I'm OK with that, especially if that money then gets reinvested into further solving the problem.
- tomp 7y agoSure, there are solutions for this. Luxury taxes, tiered use (first 4L of water per day free!), properly priced externalities (e.g. a Corvette is taxed more than a Peugeot because there's more CO2 exhaust, cow meat is taxed more than chicken because of CH4... companies will adjust, new tech will be developed), ... but yeah, unless you straight hate the rich, then the rich will be able to do more things than the poor - that's kind of the point of being rich (and unless you ban all "undesirable" behaviour, that also means the rich will be able to do more of that than the poor). I'm mainly just against the idea that shorter wash cycles are less desirable than airplane rides.
- w1nst0nsm1th 7y agoAnd some people value healthcare better than others... So let's price healthcare the right price for those who value good healthcare, like in the US, where the average Joe avoid going to the doctor, even when he is insured, or go bankrupt when he have to go to ER for a simple broken leg or die from diabetes because he can't pay the monthly 1300$ for medication and save on insuline shots. Sure "Price Regulation" seems to be the solution.
- tomp 7y agoI never said "price regulation". The government should take steps to ensure things are priced fairly and (even more important) transparently. That will look different for different markets, products, market structures (sometimes the government needs to break up the monopoly), ... The situation in healthcare is very complicated and has a lot of moving parts, but the situation in energy less so (AFAIK), it's just that some externalities are not accounted for at all. Opposing that you have lobbyists (e.g. oil) and ideologically-driven players (e.g. some people want to ban meat).