3 ms·

If they were forced to price all this in things would just cost more and they would go on being profitable. Also there would be a ton of innovation in negating

by robryan 14y ago

If they were forced to price all this in things would just cost more and they would go on being profitable. Also there would be a ton of innovation in negating these costs.

praptak 14y ago
> things would just cost more and they would go on being profitable Unless they got replaced by something other that is currently unprofitable due to the de facto dumping prices of those industries.
- dagw 14y ago
  Food and Electricity aren't really things that can be replaced. Sure the details of the particular methods currently used to produce them would change, as would the level at which their consumed, but the underlying companies and industries would simply adapt to these new realities.
  - patrickk 14y ago
    What food is consumed and how electricity is generated can be changed though. If for instance, you wanted to reduce the impact of cattle farming in South America, you could encourage people to eat alternative sources of meat and protein (substitutes) or tackle the problem by pouring more funding into research into synthetic beef[1]. For electricity generation, you could gradually ramp up taxes on the dirtiest sources of power generation, coupled with economic incentives for individuals and companies, which would guarantee lower monthly bills for those who switch, and guarantee a certain price for excess power that is generated to sweeten the deal. You could also introduce heavier taxes on inefficient home appliances, and subsidise LED bulbs (for example) to encourage adoption. It's not that these problems are insurmountable, it's people's attitudes and entrenched interests. (a thought experiment- if you could say for certain that sea levels would rise by some amount within say 50 years, and this would guarantee that many major coastal cities would be flooded within our lifetime unless we do x within the next decade, do you think people would do x?) Again, it's attitudes. No one wants to be out of pocket, and many people just don't see any visible downside to continue eating beef or getting their electricity from a coal fired power source. [1] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/technology/130307/freaked-out-horse-meat-try-vitro-beef-burger http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/technology/...
  - king_jester 14y ago
    It's not that food or electricity would be replaced, but rather the source of food and electricity may be different or there may be different practices for using current sources of food and electricity if those industries had to pay for the externalities they generate.

by robryan 14y ago

If they were forced to price all this in things would just cost more and they would go on being profitable. Also there would be a ton of innovation in negating these costs.

praptak 14y ago

> things would just cost more and they would go on being profitable Unless they got replaced by something other that is currently unprofitable due to the de facto dumping prices of those industries.

dagw 14y ago
Food and Electricity aren't really things that can be replaced. Sure the details of the particular methods currently used to produce them would change, as would the level at which their consumed, but the underlying companies and industries would simply adapt to these new realities.
- patrickk 14y ago
  What food is consumed and how electricity is generated can be changed though. If for instance, you wanted to reduce the impact of cattle farming in South America, you could encourage people to eat alternative sources of meat and protein (substitutes) or tackle the problem by pouring more funding into research into synthetic beef[1]. For electricity generation, you could gradually ramp up taxes on the dirtiest sources of power generation, coupled with economic incentives for individuals and companies, which would guarantee lower monthly bills for those who switch, and guarantee a certain price for excess power that is generated to sweeten the deal. You could also introduce heavier taxes on inefficient home appliances, and subsidise LED bulbs (for example) to encourage adoption. It's not that these problems are insurmountable, it's people's attitudes and entrenched interests. (a thought experiment- if you could say for certain that sea levels would rise by some amount within say 50 years, and this would guarantee that many major coastal cities would be flooded within our lifetime unless we do x within the next decade, do you think people would do x?) Again, it's attitudes. No one wants to be out of pocket, and many people just don't see any visible downside to continue eating beef or getting their electricity from a coal fired power source. [1] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/technology/130307/freaked-out-horse-meat-try-vitro-beef-burger http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/technology/...
- king_jester 14y ago
  It's not that food or electricity would be replaced, but rather the source of food and electricity may be different or there may be different practices for using current sources of food and electricity if those industries had to pay for the externalities they generate.