5 ms·
It's not financing. It's the fact that we don't have a carbon tax. Price carbon near the cost of sequestration and you will see plenty of money invested in alte
by T_S_ 15y ago
It's not financing. It's the fact that we don't have a carbon tax. Price carbon near the cost of sequestration and you will see plenty of money invested in alternative energy. Anything else keeps the decision making in the hands of the central planners. Ask Gorbachev how well that worked.
- baddox 15y agoSo, you're admitting that the problem is financing. You're just proposing one way of incentivizing financing.
- spenrose 15y agoI am not sure why y'all are arguing. Either a carbon tax or better financing would help.
- T_S_ 15y agoThey both help reduce climate change? Not sure. Without a carbon tax you could burn 100 tons of coal to make a "green device" and nobody would know the exact figure. With it, you don't even need to do the calculation. It's in the price.
- T_S_ 15y agoNo. The article is a coded call for subsidies of solar through "improved" financing. Subsidizing a specific activity means the government picks the technology. A carbon tax would bring all the same benefits and would not have the government deciding which technology to favor. For example there is a competing technology called "smaller houses". A carbon tax would promote that and leave the choice in private hands.
- fdschoeneman 15y agoSo wait, it is your argument that with a carbon tax, solar panels become economically viable? I'm not sure I buy that. Under this scenario, solar would have to be competitive with other forms of energy generation such as nuclear, and that isn't going to happen. Ever. Even the Obama administration is behind nuclear plant expansion.
- T_S_ 15y agoI forgot to mention the radioactive cesium tax. There, fixed that. Seriously though, the government will never be able to out-optimize individual choice in choosing technologies. Besides, the system needs to be tech-neutral or else we get a new generation of special interests.