3 ms·
Two cents: Subsidies for fossile fuels do not make them cheap. They might make some local form competitive to the international market, but their inherent valu
by choeger 6y ago
Two cents:
Subsidies for fossile fuels do not make them cheap. They might make some local form competitive to the international market, but their inherent value comes from simple physics. Fossile fuels are simply much more effective than renewables. This does not mean that we cannot change it, but we need a compelling alternative. Slavery, for instance, was the most efficient means of agriculture for thousands of years. We changed it, somewhat ironically, by replacing it with mechanisation, driven by fossile fuels.
Externalities are extremely hard to give a fair price. We could have a limited CO2 Budget, but that limit would be artificial. Think of a CO2 Credit currency: Who would not be tempted to increase the limit ever so slightly to generate the credits for a new school/hospital/anti-terror-drone?
So, no, I do not think markets offer a solution here. They could help, of course, but the real solution is the introduction of effectively free energy with massive-scale photovoltaics. One barrel Crude oil has an energy of around 1.8MWh and costs between $20 and $70 to produce. Thus, to overcome oil, one needs to get the price per kWh solar down between four and one dollar cent. We are about to reach that point rather soon. From there on it is game over for big oil.
- rsynnott 6y ago> Slavery, for instance, was the most efficient means of agriculture for thousands of years. We changed it, somewhat ironically, by replacing it with mechanisation, driven by fossile fuels. Eh? Almost nowhere transitioned directly from slavery to mechanisation. Not serfdom, even. Heavy mechanisation of agriculture was a 20th century thing.
- choeger 6y agoRight. But before that mechanisation, slavery still would have been the most efficient means of production.
- TT3351 6y agoWhy do you think this? It adds additional, real costs ranging from the need to finance extensive population controls (with the ensuing social unrest) and an unreliable workforce prone to running away.
- choeger 6y agoMostly because of the seasonality of work. If I own farmland and want to harvest wheat, I need my workforce only in spring and Autumn. But then I need them 25/8, if you get what I am saying. Buying this kind of labor on a fair market is definitelyire expensive than just "owning" it.
- rsynnott 6y agoWhat makes you believe this? I don't think there's actually much evidence for it in the recent past (previous 300 years, say). Part of the reason that the British Empire was able to get rid of it with minimal fuss in the early 19th century was that it was no longer considered economically viable, and was already in a natural decline in many places. Most of the resistance to the abolition of slavery in most places was social; it was an upheaval in the way things were done. "GDP will drop" was not, as far as I know, a major concern, nor did it generally happen.
- imtringued 6y agoIf you count externalities then fossil fuels are not cheap. The reason why they are cheap is that you can sweep the dirt under the rug and pretend there is no problem.