3 ms·
Depends what you mean by "easier to solve." It's certainly not easier than not solving the externalities of fossil fuels, which is what we're currently doing. I
by tshaddox 4y ago
Depends what you mean by "easier to solve." It's certainly not easier than not solving the externalities of fossil fuels, which is what we're currently doing. If we somehow mandated that fossil fuel externalities were solved (internalized), then perhaps we would find that solving the externalities of alternative energy sources would indeed by easier/cheaper.
- Me1000 4y agoYou're probably right, but that ship has long sailed, I fear. In order to solve for the externalities you've got to get broad buy-in, and people are already hesitant to spend money on a small device that captures participates and emissions at the source, to say nothing of a carbon-tax. So you're stuck with a political problem. On the other hand there is already a market for recycling of metals and batteries. So you've basically avoided the political problem entirely buy just telling people "you'll get X dollars back when you recycle your car's battery". Just practically speaking, a person has got to do something with their old battery, might as well get a few bucks.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago> It's certainly not easier than not solving the externalities of fossil fuels Sorry if I was imprecise. I meant dealing with the externalities of fossil fuels, even if 'dealing' turns out to be "change nothing and see what happens".