4 ms·

This is a basic challenge to our attempts to get off fossil fuels. The only way for alternative energy sources to be viable is if they are cheaper than fossil f

by beat 12y ago

This is a basic challenge to our attempts to get off fossil fuels. The only way for alternative energy sources to be viable is if they are cheaper than fossil fuel. But since fossil fuel supply outstrips demand, and prices have been set since the 1970s by cartel rather than market forces, there's always been the potential for the cartel to simply drop prices through the floor if they felt it would advance their interests. That time is here. But as Ghandi said, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. They've gone from laughing at alternative energy to fighting it.

emodendroket 12y ago
There is no reason besides lack of political will that that goal couldn't be achieved through policy.
- beat 12y ago
  International policy, when there's a clear financial benefit to countries that ignore the international policy. Good luck with that political will.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    It's very rare that any country's government consists entirely of people acting in concert, so it seems strange to make a sweeping statement like that. Besides that, there are also real costs to environmental devastation.
    - beat 12y ago
      Let's say government A implements a carbon tax that increases fossil fuel costs by 25%. Government B chooses not to do so. So energy, the driver of the economy, is 25% cheaper for government B, giving them a competitive advantage. Now government A will be under massive internal pressure to abolish the carbon tax, because they're losing market share to the cheap energy of government B. That's why it won't work. Externalized costs are a problem, but they're not a problem we're going to do anything about in a serious way.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        Government A will more likely see their market operate in a rational way rather than irrational way. The rational way for its market to respond will be to shift to non-carbon forms of energy generation (which are already pretty much cost competitive without subsidies anyhow). The irrational way would simply be to stop producing and exporting goods because coal is more expensive.
        67726e 12y ago
        The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. All the while Government A is plugging along on renewables, driving the price down, Government B is going to be eating Government A's lunch.
        dirtyaura 12y ago
        If the problem (CO2 pollution) is considered serious enough by multiple governments, Government A can join forces with Government C, D, and E and form a trade agreement against B. They can create a trade embargo against B, or have higher customs tax for products from Government B or other kinds of trade sanctions. Isn't this just international politics 101? EU and US have trade sanctions against Russia at the moment. UN had embargo against South Africa during the apartheid. Environmental issues are no different.
        67726e 12y ago
        Let's use a real-world example: China. How likely is that to work out? Now well. China gets cheaper oil, can't be easily coerced by force, and there is a large level of dependence.
        dirtyaura 12y ago
        First, if it works against Russia, it can work against China. It's just harder. Level of dependence between many EU countries and Russian energy sources are comparable to US trade with China. Second, there's a false assumption in your real-world example that China doesn't want to protect their environment. If the danger is real and serious, they will. Currently they are just playing catch up with economic activity and living standards and at some point the environmental issues will become to focus. There is already raising environmental awareness in Chinese cities due to pollution.

by beat 12y ago

emodendroket 12y ago

There is no reason besides lack of political will that that goal couldn't be achieved through policy.

beat 12y ago
International policy, when there's a clear financial benefit to countries that ignore the international policy. Good luck with that political will.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  It's very rare that any country's government consists entirely of people acting in concert, so it seems strange to make a sweeping statement like that. Besides that, there are also real costs to environmental devastation.
  - beat 12y ago
    Let's say government A implements a carbon tax that increases fossil fuel costs by 25%. Government B chooses not to do so. So energy, the driver of the economy, is 25% cheaper for government B, giving them a competitive advantage. Now government A will be under massive internal pressure to abolish the carbon tax, because they're losing market share to the cheap energy of government B. That's why it won't work. Externalized costs are a problem, but they're not a problem we're going to do anything about in a serious way.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      Government A will more likely see their market operate in a rational way rather than irrational way. The rational way for its market to respond will be to shift to non-carbon forms of energy generation (which are already pretty much cost competitive without subsidies anyhow). The irrational way would simply be to stop producing and exporting goods because coal is more expensive.
      - 67726e 12y ago
        The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. All the while Government A is plugging along on renewables, driving the price down, Government B is going to be eating Government A's lunch.
        dirtyaura 12y ago
        If the problem (CO2 pollution) is considered serious enough by multiple governments, Government A can join forces with Government C, D, and E and form a trade agreement against B. They can create a trade embargo against B, or have higher customs tax for products from Government B or other kinds of trade sanctions. Isn't this just international politics 101? EU and US have trade sanctions against Russia at the moment. UN had embargo against South Africa during the apartheid. Environmental issues are no different.
        67726e 12y ago
        Let's use a real-world example: China. How likely is that to work out? Now well. China gets cheaper oil, can't be easily coerced by force, and there is a large level of dependence.
        dirtyaura 12y ago
        First, if it works against Russia, it can work against China. It's just harder. Level of dependence between many EU countries and Russian energy sources are comparable to US trade with China. Second, there's a false assumption in your real-world example that China doesn't want to protect their environment. If the danger is real and serious, they will. Currently they are just playing catch up with economic activity and living standards and at some point the environmental issues will become to focus. There is already raising environmental awareness in Chinese cities due to pollution.