5 ms·
Apply the same argument for mass transit. Sometimes the desired outcome (less of the countryside being covered in solar panels, wind farms, or giant pit mines,
by spauldo 1y ago
Apply the same argument for mass transit.
Sometimes the desired outcome (less of the countryside being covered in solar panels, wind farms, or giant pit mines, in this case) isn't most economically efficient. It's up to the people whether it's worth spending tax money to achieve this. I personally don't mind wind and solar farms (or nuclear, for that matter), but my region isn't what anyone would consider "scenic."
- Timon3 1y agoIf we apply the same argument for mass transit, we also have to be fair and apply it for individual transit. Or are you under the impression that's not subsidized? It usually receives far higher subsidies than mass transit!
- spauldo 1y agoNot sure how that changes my point.
- Timon3 1y agoAll forms of transit require subsidies, but the same doesn't go for all forms of power generation. That makes it a bad comparison.
- spauldo 1y agoNo, they don't, actually. You can choose not to subsidize mass transit, and as a result you'll have little to none of it. Which is fine, if you want all that not having mass transit entails, such as more traffic and less mobility for the poor. You can choose not to subsidize nuclear, in which case you'll get more windmills and solar farms. This is exactly what the person you originally replied to doesn't want.
- Timon3 1y agoIt seems you didn't quite understand my point. You can remove the subsidies of nuclear and solar, in which case solar is still profitable. If you remove the subsidies of mass transit and individual transit, neither is profitable anymore.