4 ms·

Not really. We need polluting energy sources to be charged for their pollution, ie stop using the atmosphere and land as a free sewer, which in turn will put re

Not really. We need polluting energy sources to be charged for their pollution, ie stop using the atmosphere and land as a free sewer, which in turn will put renewables on an equal footing. Though even without that, solar, wind, and batteries are already cheaper.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Isn't that the same? You want to raise the price of energy to make wind etc competitive?
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  Sound bites drives political discussion. When a polluting industry poisons the air and the water and people go to the hospital because they are coughing or they have dysentery, who will pay to cleanup the mess? If you frame the discussion as about “price” it is a non-starter. I would argue it is better to talk about workers and their families. As in let us not shit in the river so our children don’t get sick and can go to school. Let us not poison the air so workers can do their jobs and not go to hospital.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    This seems disingenuous twice: 1. You're welcome to argue that, but you haven't here. You've just stated it. 2. You shouldn't supplant one topic with another. High energy prices kill people, because energy drives the cost of everything, and people can direct less value into things that keep them healthy if they're spending a greater proportion of their income on survival. You can say "also air should be clean", fine, but not "Don't think about prices! Look over here instead!"
    - Tade0 2y ago
      1. Air pollution kills more. 2. You can have your cake and eat it, if you drop the requirement to buy electricity at the price of the most expensive component in the mix. Spain did just that and they're currently experiencing an industrial revival thanks to comparatively low energy prices.
    - rawgabbit 2y ago
      No, I would argue I am correctly framing externalized costs ie the tragedy of the commons.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        The context is "You want to raise the price of energy to make wind etc competitive?" Adding a separate topic seems like a distraction. Everyone knows about negative externalities. I don't think we need to rehearse the same points to obscure the specific one I'm asking about.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      I think Rawgabbit is trying to get at the point that you need to price in the externalities to find the actual value of something. They're trying to explain in good faith as far as I can tell.
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      >High energy prices kill people Indeed, and so does air pollution. Having (accurate) prices on both allows the market to reduce pollution and energy costs efficiently.
- smackeyacky 2y ago
  No, you just need fossil fuel energy to be relatively more expensive, not for energy to be more expensive overall. It's happened already but we're currently being held hostage by the coal burners while they scramble to extract the last bit of rent they can.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    There is no way to make fossil fuel more expensive without making energy more expensive overall, because fossil fuel is included in the category of "energy overall." The effect of making fossil fuels more expensive is that energy prices will rise. The point of the GP ("Not really. We need polluting energy sources to be charged for their pollution, ie stop using the atmosphere and land as a free sewer, which in turn will put renewables on an equal footing.") is that the goal is not to raise the cost of energy as a whole (even though this is the inevitable outcome of higher fossil fuel prices), but instead to price in the negative externalities generated by fossil fuels. Put another way, in a world where fossil fuels are no longer consumed, there isn't any reason to limit energy consumption for its sake, since the whole point was to encourage adoption of cleaner technologies. There is a case to be made that this isn't true, since even the "clean" technologies have an environmental impact, but that is tangential to the discussion.
    - smackeyacky 2y ago
      I no longer think it's politically possible to charge anybody for climate externalities, since those people own our governments. We are basically stuck until even those guys realise that coal is a loser just for practical, non carbon priced reasons.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > No, you just need fossil fuel energy to be relatively more expensive, not for energy to be more expensive overall. Can you explain exactly what you mean? Say (very made up numbers) coal is $1 per day, and a renewable is $2 per day. I raise the price of coal to $3 per day to make it relatively more expensive. Haven't I just increased the price of energy overall to $2 per day?
- youngtaff 2y ago
  Wind is competitive already… the price of electricity in the UK is set by the gas fired power generators
  - lurk2 2y ago
    Wind isn't going to power the grid by itself.

robertlagrant 2y ago

Isn't that the same? You want to raise the price of energy to make wind etc competitive?

rawgabbit 2y ago
Sound bites drives political discussion. When a polluting industry poisons the air and the water and people go to the hospital because they are coughing or they have dysentery, who will pay to cleanup the mess? If you frame the discussion as about “price” it is a non-starter. I would argue it is better to talk about workers and their families. As in let us not shit in the river so our children don’t get sick and can go to school. Let us not poison the air so workers can do their jobs and not go to hospital.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  This seems disingenuous twice: 1. You're welcome to argue that, but you haven't here. You've just stated it. 2. You shouldn't supplant one topic with another. High energy prices kill people, because energy drives the cost of everything, and people can direct less value into things that keep them healthy if they're spending a greater proportion of their income on survival. You can say "also air should be clean", fine, but not "Don't think about prices! Look over here instead!"
  - Tade0 2y ago
    1. Air pollution kills more. 2. You can have your cake and eat it, if you drop the requirement to buy electricity at the price of the most expensive component in the mix. Spain did just that and they're currently experiencing an industrial revival thanks to comparatively low energy prices.
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    No, I would argue I am correctly framing externalized costs ie the tragedy of the commons.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The context is "You want to raise the price of energy to make wind etc competitive?" Adding a separate topic seems like a distraction. Everyone knows about negative externalities. I don't think we need to rehearse the same points to obscure the specific one I'm asking about.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    I think Rawgabbit is trying to get at the point that you need to price in the externalities to find the actual value of something. They're trying to explain in good faith as far as I can tell.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    >High energy prices kill people Indeed, and so does air pollution. Having (accurate) prices on both allows the market to reduce pollution and energy costs efficiently.
smackeyacky 2y ago
No, you just need fossil fuel energy to be relatively more expensive, not for energy to be more expensive overall. It's happened already but we're currently being held hostage by the coal burners while they scramble to extract the last bit of rent they can.
- lurk2 2y ago
  There is no way to make fossil fuel more expensive without making energy more expensive overall, because fossil fuel is included in the category of "energy overall." The effect of making fossil fuels more expensive is that energy prices will rise. The point of the GP ("Not really. We need polluting energy sources to be charged for their pollution, ie stop using the atmosphere and land as a free sewer, which in turn will put renewables on an equal footing.") is that the goal is not to raise the cost of energy as a whole (even though this is the inevitable outcome of higher fossil fuel prices), but instead to price in the negative externalities generated by fossil fuels. Put another way, in a world where fossil fuels are no longer consumed, there isn't any reason to limit energy consumption for its sake, since the whole point was to encourage adoption of cleaner technologies. There is a case to be made that this isn't true, since even the "clean" technologies have an environmental impact, but that is tangential to the discussion.
  - smackeyacky 2y ago
    I no longer think it's politically possible to charge anybody for climate externalities, since those people own our governments. We are basically stuck until even those guys realise that coal is a loser just for practical, non carbon priced reasons.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > No, you just need fossil fuel energy to be relatively more expensive, not for energy to be more expensive overall. Can you explain exactly what you mean? Say (very made up numbers) coal is $1 per day, and a renewable is $2 per day. I raise the price of coal to $3 per day to make it relatively more expensive. Haven't I just increased the price of energy overall to $2 per day?
youngtaff 2y ago
Wind is competitive already… the price of electricity in the UK is set by the gas fired power generators
- lurk2 2y ago
  Wind isn't going to power the grid by itself.