3 ms·
I’m not exactly sure we are disagreeing. > we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for ene
by espadrine 5y ago
I’m not exactly sure we are disagreeing.
> we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that?
In the suggested policy I was replying to, the $2k would decrease if I (and many others) switched to renewable. That loss would muddy the gains, discouraging the switch. Besides, the methods you are describing tend to have high upfront costs.
Hence, the need for subsidizing instead, something very close, but without a negative-feedback-loop incentive.
To be fair, while that is a reasonable policy (and why so many countries enact it), I would favor requiring each company to be individually carbon-neutral, with an exponential penalty.
As a result, it is not a tax which could weaken the vulnerable, and yet it forces companies to choose between reducing their negative externalities, and bankruptcy.
But computing carbon-neutrality is hard.
- hectormalot 5y agoMaybe not that far apart. The challenge with subsidies is the administration and making sure you exhaustively subsidize different options. It’s also infeasible for smaller investments such as radiator foil. My underlying assumption is that you would reduce the 2k compensation in my example. So the incentive for any saving remains. On duration: I installed solar for 0.80€ (ex vat) per Wp (which generates about 1kWh p.a.). In NL electricity rates recently spiked to 0.45 euro per kWh. Based on that, payback time is now less than 2 years (that includes everything, panels, inverter and installation, etc.) but I think we agree the challenge is to find a way to create a good market incentive for consumers and industry to reduce their externalities/CO2.