7 ms·

> But many of those same countries are now having second thoughts. I didn't see where those countries were having "second thoughts". Italy, Portugal, Slovakia

> But many of those same countries are now having second thoughts. I didn't see where those countries were having "second thoughts". Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania want 2040 instead of 2035, but the source material doesn't indicate they first wanted 2035 and then had second thoughts for 2040. > The United States should consider adopting a market-based strategy for increasing electric vehicle usage. Wake me up when Reason describes how to include the significant negative externalities of vehicle ownership in the market price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#Solutions_to_negative_externalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#S... lists a few ways, one of which is regulation. Two others are fuel and carbon taxes, and subsidizes, both solutions Reason's libertarian dreams avoid.

solardev 4y ago
FWIW, as someone who is generally pretty left-leaning and not at all libertarian (more policy, please), I still find Reason a rather valuable resource, very different from the "fake news" kinda rags. They put out good articles that may skew free-market, yes, but often serve a perspective vacuum when it comes to renewables journalism. A lot of renewables reporting is rah-rah hypemongering that slants sensationalist and unrealistic, which over the long term has the side effect of making the public more and more cynical as most of the exciting developments they hear about (solar roadways!) never come to fruition for reasons they never bother to examine, because the articles are more marketing fluff than actual analysis. Reason at least provides a sobering counter-narrative and forces advocates of renewables to better examine and defend their positions and/or identify weaknesses to address. It's almost like a good peer review process. I appreciate what they do, even if I'm not their target audience. Edit: And I think renewables/emissions/carbon targets and things like CAFE standards are always being double- and triple-guessed. They are political games, not scientific projections.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Can you point to a renewables piece which is more substantive than this one? Because I found this one pretty information free. For example, does Reason have a position on the goal of net zero emissions by 2050? Is it a valid goal? A search now mostly finds criticism that it can be reached, and an argument that top-down regulations are much worse than rapid economic growth and a free market. But that's an evaluation of the political success, not the need for success. And most of the content I find is that things will get worse, but we can let the free market solve the problems. And with a touch of its own rah-rah hypemongering, for example, that "small modular nuclear reactors paired with molten salt storage" will come to the rescue, and we won't have to change our existing habits. Their solution seems well summarized at https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-be-kept/ https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-... : ] All of the ongoing trends toward the adoption of lower emissions energy sources and technologies would be dramatically accelerated if policymakers adopt clean free market policies instead of the top-down mandates popular at COP26. Unlike subsidies and mandates that target specific technologies, clean tax cuts are a technology-neutral tool that rewards innovators and encourages competition to develop and deploy low emissions energy supplies and infrastructure. because, "Cutting taxes is nearly always a good thing “for any excuse whatsoever.”" says https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/Policy-Brief-2-Understanding-Clean-Tax-Cuts.pdf https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpuplo... , and ... no, I am not going to read dumb-ass libertarian policies statements like this, based in the premise that The Free Market Solves Everything.

solardev 4y ago

FWIW, as someone who is generally pretty left-leaning and not at all libertarian (more policy, please), I still find Reason a rather valuable resource, very different from the "fake news" kinda rags. They put out good articles that may skew free-market, yes, but often serve a perspective vacuum when it comes to renewables journalism. A lot of renewables reporting is rah-rah hypemongering that slants sensationalist and unrealistic, which over the long term has the side effect of making the public more and more cynical as most of the exciting developments they hear about (solar roadways!) never come to fruition for reasons they never bother to examine, because the articles are more marketing fluff than actual analysis. Reason at least provides a sobering counter-narrative and forces advocates of renewables to better examine and defend their positions and/or identify weaknesses to address. It's almost like a good peer review process. I appreciate what they do, even if I'm not their target audience. Edit: And I think renewables/emissions/carbon targets and things like CAFE standards are always being double- and triple-guessed. They are political games, not scientific projections.

eesmith 4y ago
Can you point to a renewables piece which is more substantive than this one? Because I found this one pretty information free. For example, does Reason have a position on the goal of net zero emissions by 2050? Is it a valid goal? A search now mostly finds criticism that it can be reached, and an argument that top-down regulations are much worse than rapid economic growth and a free market. But that's an evaluation of the political success, not the need for success. And most of the content I find is that things will get worse, but we can let the free market solve the problems. And with a touch of its own rah-rah hypemongering, for example, that "small modular nuclear reactors paired with molten salt storage" will come to the rescue, and we won't have to change our existing habits. Their solution seems well summarized at https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-be-kept/ https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-... : ] All of the ongoing trends toward the adoption of lower emissions energy sources and technologies would be dramatically accelerated if policymakers adopt clean free market policies instead of the top-down mandates popular at COP26. Unlike subsidies and mandates that target specific technologies, clean tax cuts are a technology-neutral tool that rewards innovators and encourages competition to develop and deploy low emissions energy supplies and infrastructure. because, "Cutting taxes is nearly always a good thing “for any excuse whatsoever.”" says https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/Policy-Brief-2-Understanding-Clean-Tax-Cuts.pdf https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpuplo... , and ... no, I am not going to read dumb-ass libertarian policies statements like this, based in the premise that The Free Market Solves Everything.