4 ms·

This is the same reason I have a difficult time really worrying about waste production and energy use in my household[1]. Residential energy use amounts to betw

This is the same reason I have a difficult time really worrying about waste production and energy use in my household[1]. Residential energy use amounts to between 10 and 15% of US energy use[2]; from what I remember, waste is about the same or less. 1. This is not to say I don't practice waste reduction and energy conservation; just that I don't stress if something slips through the cracks. 2. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_consumption.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_consumption.cfm

SilasX 12y ago
This is actually typical of conservation policies. We freak out over disposable bags and mandate a 10 cent charge for them, even though industrial users could reduce a lot more waste for ten cents. We ban incandescent light bulbs, irrespective of how much additional tax anyone would be willing to pay to buy one. We ban high flow shower heads, while placing no restrictions on how much water you draw for your lawn. It's like one big social experiment to see how inefficient and value destructive the policies can get before people finally balk.
- ghouse 12y ago
  Disposable bag ban wasn't because of a reduction of waste, but a proliferation of trash. We (pretty much all governments world wide) subsidize electricity, so consumers don't see a complete price signal and thus are less sensitive to less efficient lightbulbs. We subsidize water, and then place restrictions on it's use. Without the subsidy, the restriction wouldn't be necessary -- the market would sort it out.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    That's exactly what I'm criticizing: these policies get the incentives all wrong and destroy socially beneficial improvements. Why restrict use type X when you're just going let people blow as much as they want on use type Y? (Like restricting showers but not lawns/farms or bags but not candy wrappers.) If you want to subsidize a utility, subsidize the first N units per person and let the rest be full price; then you wouldn't have to play whack-a-mole with every possible wasteful use. And why restrict the use of something (like bulbs) when people are willing to pay more than the magnitude of the externality? While incandescent bulbs may be bad, they're not infinitely bad. This policy destroys all value that could be created by people's willingness to pay net of the environmental cost. Why argue that it makes sense? None of it makes sense, even and especially on environmental grounds.
    - ghouse 12y ago
      I don't argue that it makes sense. I think it's bad policy. Quit subsidizing. Internalize the externalities. Let the market figure it out. I don't want to subsidize a utility. If I want to subsidize the poor, I'll give them money and let them figure it out. Maybe they'd rather spend it on better insulation. Or a sweater. Subsidizing the utility does exactly that. It doesn't subsidize the poor.
      - kbenson 12y ago
        Water is a requirement for human life, not a luxury. We subsidize water because it's a basic need. Markets are good at finding the correct price, we've just decided that we're unwilling to accept the "correct" price being too high, as it would undoubtedly be in some instances. This causes problems where it meets with industry and their use of water. The problem is exacerbated by water "rights" based on land ownership.
        SilasX 12y ago
        Our point was that the current policy is the wrong way to subsidize water, even accepting those considerations. If you make water artificially cheap all the time, people abuse it unsustainably. The better policy is to subsidize the first N units for each person but make them pay the real cost for the rest. "Water is a necessity" is woefully insufficient to justify current policy, so repeating the arguments doesn't advance the discussion.
        kbenson 12y ago
        I was responding specifically to "Quit subsidizing. Internalize the externalities. Let the market figure it out." "Water is a necessity" is woefully insufficient to justify current policy, but it does help explain why just letting the market sort it out may not be the best choice.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

SilasX 12y ago

This is actually typical of conservation policies. We freak out over disposable bags and mandate a 10 cent charge for them, even though industrial users could reduce a lot more waste for ten cents. We ban incandescent light bulbs, irrespective of how much additional tax anyone would be willing to pay to buy one. We ban high flow shower heads, while placing no restrictions on how much water you draw for your lawn. It's like one big social experiment to see how inefficient and value destructive the policies can get before people finally balk.

ghouse 12y ago
Disposable bag ban wasn't because of a reduction of waste, but a proliferation of trash. We (pretty much all governments world wide) subsidize electricity, so consumers don't see a complete price signal and thus are less sensitive to less efficient lightbulbs. We subsidize water, and then place restrictions on it's use. Without the subsidy, the restriction wouldn't be necessary -- the market would sort it out.
- SilasX 12y ago
  That's exactly what I'm criticizing: these policies get the incentives all wrong and destroy socially beneficial improvements. Why restrict use type X when you're just going let people blow as much as they want on use type Y? (Like restricting showers but not lawns/farms or bags but not candy wrappers.) If you want to subsidize a utility, subsidize the first N units per person and let the rest be full price; then you wouldn't have to play whack-a-mole with every possible wasteful use. And why restrict the use of something (like bulbs) when people are willing to pay more than the magnitude of the externality? While incandescent bulbs may be bad, they're not infinitely bad. This policy destroys all value that could be created by people's willingness to pay net of the environmental cost. Why argue that it makes sense? None of it makes sense, even and especially on environmental grounds.
  - ghouse 12y ago
    I don't argue that it makes sense. I think it's bad policy. Quit subsidizing. Internalize the externalities. Let the market figure it out. I don't want to subsidize a utility. If I want to subsidize the poor, I'll give them money and let them figure it out. Maybe they'd rather spend it on better insulation. Or a sweater. Subsidizing the utility does exactly that. It doesn't subsidize the poor.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Water is a requirement for human life, not a luxury. We subsidize water because it's a basic need. Markets are good at finding the correct price, we've just decided that we're unwilling to accept the "correct" price being too high, as it would undoubtedly be in some instances. This causes problems where it meets with industry and their use of water. The problem is exacerbated by water "rights" based on land ownership.
      - SilasX 12y ago
        Our point was that the current policy is the wrong way to subsidize water, even accepting those considerations. If you make water artificially cheap all the time, people abuse it unsustainably. The better policy is to subsidize the first N units for each person but make them pay the real cost for the rest. "Water is a necessity" is woefully insufficient to justify current policy, so repeating the arguments doesn't advance the discussion.
        kbenson 12y ago
        I was responding specifically to "Quit subsidizing. Internalize the externalities. Let the market figure it out." "Water is a necessity" is woefully insufficient to justify current policy, but it does help explain why just letting the market sort it out may not be the best choice.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]