4 ms·

I agree that increasing efficiency has enormous potential, but consumers are almost certainly responsible for only a small share of overall energy consumption c

I agree that increasing efficiency has enormous potential, but consumers are almost certainly responsible for only a small share of overall energy consumption compared with industry and transport. We need to target our measures there, which implies adjusting incentives. We really should build pollution charges into the cost of electricity (“carbon pricing” if you’re talking to conservatives who balk at the “carbon tax” and the inverse for progressives who balk at markets); however, corporations won’t stand for that, and they effectively govern us over here in the United States. Moreover, this would also trickle down to consumers at least until industries respond by making their processes more efficient which would presumably drive public sentiment in favor of pollution (regrettably, I suspect we are a weak-willed people these days, but I’d be happy to be disproven).

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> however, corporations won’t stand for that, and they effectively govern us over here in the United States. How does this square with this? > Moreover, this would also trickle down to consumers at least until industries respond by making their processes more efficient which would presumably drive public sentiment in favor of pollution (regrettably, I suspect we are a weak-willed people these days, but I’d be happy to be disproven). People have the power to vote in the US. They have had many decades to vote for politicians that will increase taxes on fossil fuel. European countries have voted to do that many, many years ago. It befuddles me when blame is placed on corporations in a country whose population explicitly prioritizes driving pickup trucks and SUVs for grocery and school runs. Any upwards movement in fossil fuel prices, which are already among the lowest for large democratic countries, results in the general public to be furious at politicians. The facts illustrate a simple truth: Voters in America only want a reduction in usage of fossil fuels as long as it does not affect their expected future lifestyle.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I’m on mobile, so I don’t have the study link handy, but a bill which is very popular among ordinary people and very unpopular among corporations stands something like a 30% chance of being passed into law while a bill which is very popular among corporations but very unpopular among voters has nearly 100% chance of being signed into law (I don’t remember exact numbers). > It befuddles me when blame is placed on corporations in a country whose population explicitly prioritizes driving pickup trucks and SUVs for grocery and school runs. Any upwards movement in fossil fuel prices, which are already among the lowest for large democratic countries, results in the general public to be furious at politicians. Everyone is just responding to market incentives at the end of the day, which is the point behind carbon pricing: align our environmental and financial incentives. So I prefer to focus on systemic solutions rather than placing blame, although I certainly think it’s good and useful to blame/shame corporations and politicians who actively oppose the public good (even though this kind of corruption is another form of responding to incentives). > Voters in America only want a reduction in usage of fossil fuels as long as it does not affect their expected future lifestyle Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant because we don’t actually need to change our lifestyles very much. Implement a carbon tax and gradually raise the price over time so it gives corporations some time to optimize their processes for efficiency thereby keeping consumer costs low. That corporations can and do respond to legislated incentives is one of the takeaways of TFA, after all.
bluGill 5y ago
Industry has already responded and will continue to do so. My company has a foundry where we melt iron. Our production schedule is planed with the power company months in advance so we can get the lowest possible rates. The factory only works the night shift. The factory shuts down for maintenance in December (the power we don't use goes to Christmas lights). We are not the only company doing that. Not all industry can respond those. Restaurants use a lot of energy (I'm guessing less than cooking at home though - anyone know how to check this), but they have to cook when people want food not when energy is abundant.
- guerby 5y ago
  Very interesting thanks for your comment! What is your foundry yearly "capacity" factor? Below 30% if only night shifts and some monthes off? I'm curious wether foundry like yours could run only on PV produced electricity and some wind.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    I have no idea and probably wouldn't be allowed to talk if I did. We have one factory that does 5 months of production, then 7 of maintenance. Everything is replaced in those 7 months, thus ensuring there are no breakdowns (just in time doesn't work if the conveyor breaks). The workers mostly go to a different factory in the area on the opposite schedule, we plan labor that way so they have a job year round just a different destination.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> however, corporations won’t stand for that, and they effectively govern us over here in the United States. How does this square with this? > Moreover, this would also trickle down to consumers at least until industries respond by making their processes more efficient which would presumably drive public sentiment in favor of pollution (regrettably, I suspect we are a weak-willed people these days, but I’d be happy to be disproven). People have the power to vote in the US. They have had many decades to vote for politicians that will increase taxes on fossil fuel. European countries have voted to do that many, many years ago. It befuddles me when blame is placed on corporations in a country whose population explicitly prioritizes driving pickup trucks and SUVs for grocery and school runs. Any upwards movement in fossil fuel prices, which are already among the lowest for large democratic countries, results in the general public to be furious at politicians. The facts illustrate a simple truth: Voters in America only want a reduction in usage of fossil fuels as long as it does not affect their expected future lifestyle.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I’m on mobile, so I don’t have the study link handy, but a bill which is very popular among ordinary people and very unpopular among corporations stands something like a 30% chance of being passed into law while a bill which is very popular among corporations but very unpopular among voters has nearly 100% chance of being signed into law (I don’t remember exact numbers). > It befuddles me when blame is placed on corporations in a country whose population explicitly prioritizes driving pickup trucks and SUVs for grocery and school runs. Any upwards movement in fossil fuel prices, which are already among the lowest for large democratic countries, results in the general public to be furious at politicians. Everyone is just responding to market incentives at the end of the day, which is the point behind carbon pricing: align our environmental and financial incentives. So I prefer to focus on systemic solutions rather than placing blame, although I certainly think it’s good and useful to blame/shame corporations and politicians who actively oppose the public good (even though this kind of corruption is another form of responding to incentives). > Voters in America only want a reduction in usage of fossil fuels as long as it does not affect their expected future lifestyle Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant because we don’t actually need to change our lifestyles very much. Implement a carbon tax and gradually raise the price over time so it gives corporations some time to optimize their processes for efficiency thereby keeping consumer costs low. That corporations can and do respond to legislated incentives is one of the takeaways of TFA, after all.

bluGill 5y ago

Industry has already responded and will continue to do so. My company has a foundry where we melt iron. Our production schedule is planed with the power company months in advance so we can get the lowest possible rates. The factory only works the night shift. The factory shuts down for maintenance in December (the power we don't use goes to Christmas lights). We are not the only company doing that. Not all industry can respond those. Restaurants use a lot of energy (I'm guessing less than cooking at home though - anyone know how to check this), but they have to cook when people want food not when energy is abundant.

guerby 5y ago
Very interesting thanks for your comment! What is your foundry yearly "capacity" factor? Below 30% if only night shifts and some monthes off? I'm curious wether foundry like yours could run only on PV produced electricity and some wind.
- bluGill 5y ago
  I have no idea and probably wouldn't be allowed to talk if I did. We have one factory that does 5 months of production, then 7 of maintenance. Everything is replaced in those 7 months, thus ensuring there are no breakdowns (just in time doesn't work if the conveyor breaks). The workers mostly go to a different factory in the area on the opposite schedule, we plan labor that way so they have a job year round just a different destination.