Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes... that's because we're talking about externalities that an electorate wants to go away, but doesn't want to actually pay for.

The entire problem is that we aren't paying the actual cost of what we are consuming, and the cost of a product without these externalities is slightly more, but without making people pay for the externalities, it's not marketable.

This is the tragedy of the commons, and it's only a conundrum because the electorate wants to have their cake and eat it too.






I see this argument a lot that "if only they priced in externalities the numbers would come out in favor of electricity" but I haven't seen a calculation of those externalities that isn't effectively just making up a number.

Like I just picked one from a .edu https://scarab.bates.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi and it's just comical with 980% externalities. A number that can be turned into actual policy seems impossible to reach.

It seems like the way forward is just make the thing you want people to do cheaper than the status quo, artificially or not, and let people's economic incentive kick in. But if it's artificial you can't do a California and rug pull net metering.


Climate change is real. The economic impacts are well documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_analysis_of_climate_c...




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: