3 ms·

I’m sure you’re familiar with supply and demand. The investment in green tech is driven by price of renewables compared to price of fossil fuels. A big decline

I’m sure you’re familiar with supply and demand. The investment in green tech is driven by price of renewables compared to price of fossil fuels. A big decline in supply of fossil fuels (which is what has happened in Europe due to the war) shifts the trade-off significantly in favor of green energy. This shift can be so dramatic that it drives up the short term cost of green energy. That’s a good problem to have because it just means demand is really high, which can be solved by more investment in the supply side. Your thesis that this would somehow reduce investment is completely backwards. You sell pickaxes during a gold rush, not before or after.

pydry 4y ago
>I’m sure you’re familiar with supply and demand. Yes, that's precisely why I said that the cost of capital going up due to war (higher interest rates) would have a dampening effect on green energy which is very capital intensive. That's called "supply and demand in action". The pro war argument (the Economist's) would *ignore* this facet, arguing only "fossil fuels are more expensive -> green energy will definitely be more popular". It was quite a simple point.
- kortilla 4y ago
  The cost of capital didn’t go up due to war.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > why I said that the cost of capital going up due to war (higher interest rates) would have a dampening effect on green energy which is very capital intensive If only someone looked at the rate of new and projected investment into green energy after a period of both (a) Russia invading Ukraine and (b) rising interest rates. They could write an article about it and clear up the confusion.