4 ms·

Wow, this is the most uninformed post I have ever read on HN. 1. Government investments in alternative energy have been extraordinarily successful: http://www.

Wow, this is the most uninformed post I have ever read on HN. 1. Government investments in alternative energy have been extraordinarily successful: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10165 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10165 To quote: "the report examines 17 R&D programs in energy efficiency and 22 programs in fossil energy funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These programs yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion." B. The Department of Energy's loan program has been an overwhelming success; failure rates have been lower than expected. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/21/1038907/-Solyndra-accounts-for-less-than-2-of-the-DOE-s-successful-Loan-Program http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/21/1038907/-Solyndra-a... C. Electric cars have an overall lower carbon footprint than gasoline vehicles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle#Air_pollution_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle#Air_po... And, you are missing the whole point. As the grid becomes completely generated by renewable, then the carbon footprint of electric vehicles will be drastically reduced.

yekko 14y ago
No, it is proven a total waste of taxpayer money. It did however made a few insider super rich.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Proof please.
rdl 14y ago
I'd prefer that the government tax bads/externalities vs. trying to encourage good, though -- a fossil fuel tax which is small but constantly increasing would be the single best environmental and energy-independence policy the US could have. (I'd also consider a tax on fossil fuel imports on top of that, and surtaxes on certain means of extraction to cover the environmental risks and other externalities, but a lot of that could come from mining fees from DoI -- and, the is a good case for "use up the foreign and low-cost sources first, retaining US reserves longer"). If the tax goes from 5-10% now to something in the thousands of percent over 100 years, it would lower fossil fuel use even as efficiency increases, while encouraging alternate fuels. The only losers would be primary producers (and I guess refiners, etc.) of fossil fuels; broad-spectrum energy companies should do ok since other forms of energy are still available and would gradually replace fossil fuels. There is not a shortage of capital. It's just that right now, energy investments in new technologies aren't always viable. Creating an escalating tax would instantly make a lot of new energy projects viable, and private capital would be happy to make loans/equity investments/etc.
- loganfrederick 14y ago
  For anyone who reads this comment and is interested in this concept, it's economic academic name is "Pigovian Tax": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
  - rdl 14y ago
    Pigovian taxes are just the "tax externalities" part. I think it's just as important that it be operational on a long term scale, with a steady and predictable increase, to influence decisions. It would be unfair to tax a company overnight at a high rate for this stuff, because it would strand a lot of current investments. Replacing capital goods 20y ahead of schedule might actually have an environmental cost higher than doing so in 5-10 years, since there's a lot of energy and other pollution embodied in the capital goods. It also picks winners and losers based on something which wasn't made clear to people in advance. Just as bad is saying "in 10 years, we're going to heavily tax or ban X", which would cost industry (say) $1t. "Good" participants, say half the market, spend $500b fixing things. "Bad" participants spend nothing on remediation but $10b on lobbying and then strand the $500b improvements made by the "good" participants. In the US, it would essentially require a treaty or constitutional amendment to bind the government to a long-term plan which might otherwise be overturned through lobbying. An escalating tax at least has the benefit of being minor pain up front, and viewed as "fair", so industry is more likely to cooperate. It's not worth going to the mattresses over a 5% tax, particularly if it takes an immediate ban or 50% tax off the table. Over time, the revenue stream will become important to the Government and to other positive government programs, so it'll be harder for industry to lobby to overturn it. At most, they might be able to lobby for a "temporary" freeze at a certain level.

yekko 14y ago

No, it is proven a total waste of taxpayer money. It did however made a few insider super rich.

toomuchtodo 14y ago
Proof please.

rdl 14y ago

I'd prefer that the government tax bads/externalities vs. trying to encourage good, though -- a fossil fuel tax which is small but constantly increasing would be the single best environmental and energy-independence policy the US could have. (I'd also consider a tax on fossil fuel imports on top of that, and surtaxes on certain means of extraction to cover the environmental risks and other externalities, but a lot of that could come from mining fees from DoI -- and, the is a good case for "use up the foreign and low-cost sources first, retaining US reserves longer"). If the tax goes from 5-10% now to something in the thousands of percent over 100 years, it would lower fossil fuel use even as efficiency increases, while encouraging alternate fuels. The only losers would be primary producers (and I guess refiners, etc.) of fossil fuels; broad-spectrum energy companies should do ok since other forms of energy are still available and would gradually replace fossil fuels. There is not a shortage of capital. It's just that right now, energy investments in new technologies aren't always viable. Creating an escalating tax would instantly make a lot of new energy projects viable, and private capital would be happy to make loans/equity investments/etc.

loganfrederick 14y ago
For anyone who reads this comment and is interested in this concept, it's economic academic name is "Pigovian Tax": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
- rdl 14y ago
  Pigovian taxes are just the "tax externalities" part. I think it's just as important that it be operational on a long term scale, with a steady and predictable increase, to influence decisions. It would be unfair to tax a company overnight at a high rate for this stuff, because it would strand a lot of current investments. Replacing capital goods 20y ahead of schedule might actually have an environmental cost higher than doing so in 5-10 years, since there's a lot of energy and other pollution embodied in the capital goods. It also picks winners and losers based on something which wasn't made clear to people in advance. Just as bad is saying "in 10 years, we're going to heavily tax or ban X", which would cost industry (say) $1t. "Good" participants, say half the market, spend $500b fixing things. "Bad" participants spend nothing on remediation but $10b on lobbying and then strand the $500b improvements made by the "good" participants. In the US, it would essentially require a treaty or constitutional amendment to bind the government to a long-term plan which might otherwise be overturned through lobbying. An escalating tax at least has the benefit of being minor pain up front, and viewed as "fair", so industry is more likely to cooperate. It's not worth going to the mattresses over a 5% tax, particularly if it takes an immediate ban or 50% tax off the table. Over time, the revenue stream will become important to the Government and to other positive government programs, so it'll be harder for industry to lobby to overturn it. At most, they might be able to lobby for a "temporary" freeze at a certain level.