4 ms·
You do have a point, and I agree that making the production-side clean should be a large focus, but there are valid arguments for reducing consumption, too, I t
by jka 4y ago
You do have a point, and I agree that making the production-side clean should be a large focus, but there are valid arguments for reducing consumption, too, I think.
Supply of energy is limited, and so there is a market effect: overconsumption by some players can increase the cost to other consumers.
Market economics should mean that the resulting increase in profit margin turns into an opportunity for more-cost-effective competitive entrants.
Most of this assumes no collusion between players in the market. If, for example, company A provides a product that is knowingly energy-inefficient and half of their board members also sit on the board of energy company B that is experiencing record profits -- and could easily acquire company C that theoretically has a cheaper energy production solution -- then perhaps problems could occur.
- jka 4y ago(note: the shared-board-seats is mostly a lazy, hypothetical and probably unlikely example. similar issues could probably occur due to vocal activist investors, capital funds, potentially even pools of shareholders aligned on similar goals. these theories rest on the idea that consumer adoption of products isn't entirely organic and rational, and that demand can be manufactured/guided)