Is this an answer to the fossil fuel (i.e. global warming) crisis?

by **teithi71** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:07 pm

In our consumer world, we have choices. Over the past few years, "green products" have made an insurgence into the market place. There are many definitions of what this means but consumers are free to investigate and buy what they see fit for their life styles. A good example is organically grown produce. It's right there in your grocery store.

Some factors for products in general are cost, reliability, maintainability, etc as far as material costs. Other factors could be social like how the company operates, how much it recycles, what is its carbon footprint, does it manufacture in the third world using children, etc. Some people use only a few of those factors, some use them all.

Now why can't this model apply to energy? We could have a free, open market of many different energy sources. People would be free to choose the energy source they wish to have (or combination) based on their own personal factors. Of course, being a free market, all industries would have to have all subsidies halted to make the playing field perfectly level. People could then choose their energy based on cost, reliability, environmentally friendly, etc. whatever their life style or personal choices dictate.

Is this not a sustainable solution?

by **devdutta58** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:10 pm

i live in australia nsw and we almost have the option we can pay a bit more for our power to get so call green energy, i have my doubts on it as it still comes on the same power network so how do i really know , i am a warmer as you would call me and i live just north of sydney and on calm still days i can see the smog dome around the city and it must have an effect on the atmosphere because everything has a price
now a free open market is an ideal and not very likely no one wants to give up what they have got so if one company has a greater market share or a technique for extracting energy out of the air then they wont be handing it over to keep a level playing field thats how business works
i am yet to see on this site any info or questions on carbon capture of which a unit is being placed on a coal fed power station in nsw as a test it is supposed to capture 100% of the emissions sounds to good to be true well may t s and may be it isnt but i have not read anything that says it dont work the only complaint so far is what to do with the captured carbon

by **otis** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:11 pm

Nope its not a free and open market...green energy is sanction and subsidized just like any preferred government regulated commodity. Mandates, caps, taxes, restrictions,policy and availability will limit the playing field concerning fossil fuels. You don't have to be a scientist to know that if you mandate a product beyond the current technology your left with the worst available choice.

by **raleah** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:17 pm

That is what a tax on carbon will do. People who wish to use unsustainable energy are free to do so, only at increased costs. People who wish to use sustainable energy forms will pay relatively less to do so which will help to increase the availability of these technologies. Gee mike, you must be a communist to come up with this idea yourself!!

by **ludano17** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:29 pm

That is what a tax on carbon will do. People who wish to use unsustainable energy are free to do so, only at increased costs. People who wish to use sustainable energy forms will pay relatively less to do so which will help to increase the availability of these technologies. Gee mike, you must be a communist to come up with this idea yourself!!

Many utilities allow you to buy your electricity from renewable sources. Check your utility bill. You voluntarily pay the higher rate for all or a certain percentage of the bill. (Note, renewable sources are typically higher cost than the non-renewable sources).

by **macquaid35** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:42 pm

I like the idea. If an alarmists wants to feel good about his or herself, they could pay 3 times as much for their energy. The problem is what they really want to do is control other people's behavior. People like Al Gore are perfect examples of "do what I say and not what I do." They seem to think they are so superior to the rest of us that they don't have to live up to the standards they want to impose.

by **bearchan** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:45 pm

I'm going to sell coal, and put cute little green stickers on it... woot!

by **jaren12** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:48 pm

I'm going to sell coal, and put cute little green stickers on it... woot!

as much as we all complain about gas prices the fact is fossil fuel is the cheapest, most efficient form of energy there is. out of all these alternatives that we've seen presented over the years, they either dont produce as much power as burning gasoline or are waaaay more expensive or both. heres and example, ethanol has been pushed alot as a replacement for gasoline but the fact is it does not produce the same amount of power as gasoline AND in order to produce enough ethanol to fuel all the cars in the united states, 95 precent of the land in the usa would have to be covered in corn crops. (and no im not making that up) so obviously thats not gonna happen. if there was a good alternative to fossil fuel that was out there, the market would jump on it and we would be using it right now. the fact is fossil fuel is the best power source we have right now, and until some new technology is created which is just as efficient and affordable as it, then we will continue using it. and as far as global warming goes, there is no such thing. global warming has already been proven a hoax. its something else for the governmant to hang over our head as an excuse to tax us more and more all in the name of saving the environment. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING.

by **jordi** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:54 pm

I am all for it. Let the market set prices and let consumers make choices.

But, let's remember that every energy source comes with costs that are not automatically and currently incorporated to prices. You mention subsidies, that's good. But what about social costs? What if production of some sources of energy requires clean-up of potential drinking water down stream? How are those costs to be included? Hydro-electric requires the flooding of vast amounts of public land that could otherwise be used for other things. How should that be costed? Should all land be privatized and bid on in order to establish the market value? (Meaning that there is no public land for camping, fishing, hunting, rafting, hiking, ...) What if production of some forms of energy produces polution that causes sickness and desease? How are those mass health costs and/or clean-up costs to be included? What if the production of some forms of energy causes the sea level to rise plus increases the frequency and intensity of both heat waves and flooding? How would those costs be incorporated.

Marketplace applications of environmental and energy solutions became popular in the 1980s as fiscal conservatives found ways to protect the environment without distorting consumer choices. It can be a very powerful tool. But to make it work, all costs must first be identified and quantified. We can't even get to that discussion in the current environment of denying physics. Intelligent fiscally conservative economics has been replaced by a battle between big-government liberals and religious zealot anti-science conservatives. Liberals want government and taxes to fix problems; conservatives want to wait for God to kill the non-Christians and then fix the problems. America has forgotten the good economics that actually works to solve problems while exciting our economic strengths.

by **emek** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:59 pm

1. "Now why can't this model apply to energy?" It can, but only very poorly unless some adjustments are made to (as your terminology would not incorrectly have it) "level the paying field." Find an introductory econ textbook and look up "externalities" and "market failures" for more about this. If you encounter the word "tax," somewhere in that vicinity of the text, be a big boy and be brave. You will not die instantly.

2. For someone uninformed about economics, this is however a reasonable question. A good example, in fact, of the sort of reasonable question that we might have here more often, if so many people would not spend so much time working out their psychological problems by lying about climate science. Or cheating using multiple aliases to falsely "report" answers that point out how riddled Yahoo Answers Global Warming is with crackpot anti-science lies.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: