2 ms·
It is a valid point of view. It may be true in a lot of places that we should step back from 100% coverage as the cost is just too high, and it is better (chea
by worik 6y ago
It is a valid point of view.
It may be true in a lot of places that we should step back from 100% coverage as the cost is just too high, and it is better (cheaper) to put the resilience in housholds than in utilities.
But your anecdote is just that - a anecdote. We need to carefully weigh those options.
Elected politicians have a bad reputation for making these trade offs sensibly. I have heard it said (by a fictional character I think - no source) that (in popular opinion) the present trumps the future every time
- dv_dt 6y agoReally it means that many many people end up paying for safety measures individually - if they can afford them. The total social cost is likely higher than building adequate infrastructure in centralized places.
- worik 6y agoYes. It depends on whether individual house holds pay their own way or if the costs are shared. I guess it would depend a lot of the local political culture.