4 ms·
I just don't understand the implied argument here at all. We can do something that results in productivity gains, which people want or they wouldn't pay for it,
by itkovian_ 2y ago
I just don't understand the implied argument here at all. We can do something that results in productivity gains, which people want or they wouldn't pay for it, but we don't want private companies to do this because we have decided an increase energy use is a bad thing. Isn't the obvious path to continue to grow towards more efficient energy sources rather than trying to suppress progress?
- scanr 2y agoIt’s about externalities. The private companies aren’t paying for the damage they are causing. It’s ultimately borne by the public. Very similar to a factory that poisons a river if there’s no disincentive not to. Better would be if we could factor in the cost to the environment into their revenue. This would better align incentives.
- timeon 2y agoYou either have growth or limited emissions. Progress to more sustainable or more efficient energy sources til now just led to covering part of ever increasing demand. Coal is still rising as well.