3 ms·

As an individual, I don't even have knowledge, let alone control about the energy consumption over the production process of things I order. It won't improve an

by moring 4y ago

As an individual, I don't even have knowledge, let alone control about the energy consumption over the production process of things I order. It won't improve anything to put responsibility for that consumption on the buyer, at least not without significant changes that could better be solved by putting an appropriate price tag on consumption. And that last part doesn't just mean to make things more expensive, which causes inflation and doesn't really make things more expensive. It means to reward saving energy compared to other costs. Asking who is to blame is -- suprise! -- not solving anything.

gruez 4y ago
>As an individual, I don't even have knowledge, let alone control about the energy consumption over the production process of things I order. It won't improve anything to put responsibility for that consumption on the buyer, at least not without significant changes that could better be solved by putting an appropriate price tag on consumption. But at the end of the day, the buyer is always right. It's easy to abdicate responsibility of production based carbon emissions to the producers, but if your buying choices actively disadvantage producers with lower carbon emissions (eg. because they cost more and you only care about costs) why would you expect producers to do anything about it? >It means to reward saving energy compared to other costs. Isn't there already an incentive to save energy? It's a cost, so businesses are already incentivized to save energy wherever they can. Higher prices incentivizes that even more.
willnonya 4y ago
The original comment wasn't about assigning blame but allowing market forces to work to balance supply and demand. The prices are how you, as an individual, gain knowledge about the energy market. Prices are high and demand out straps supply. Prices are low and supply is higher than demand. Subsidies distort this information. This isnt to say it's good that people can't heat their homes but it's the only way to balance these markets. Any solution that focuses on the consumer side relief rather than improving supply will only exacerbate the situation.

by moring 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>As an individual, I don't even have knowledge, let alone control about the energy consumption over the production process of things I order. It won't improve anything to put responsibility for that consumption on the buyer, at least not without significant changes that could better be solved by putting an appropriate price tag on consumption. But at the end of the day, the buyer is always right. It's easy to abdicate responsibility of production based carbon emissions to the producers, but if your buying choices actively disadvantage producers with lower carbon emissions (eg. because they cost more and you only care about costs) why would you expect producers to do anything about it? >It means to reward saving energy compared to other costs. Isn't there already an incentive to save energy? It's a cost, so businesses are already incentivized to save energy wherever they can. Higher prices incentivizes that even more.

willnonya 4y ago

The original comment wasn't about assigning blame but allowing market forces to work to balance supply and demand. The prices are how you, as an individual, gain knowledge about the energy market. Prices are high and demand out straps supply. Prices are low and supply is higher than demand. Subsidies distort this information. This isnt to say it's good that people can't heat their homes but it's the only way to balance these markets. Any solution that focuses on the consumer side relief rather than improving supply will only exacerbate the situation.