It’s not stupid to acknowledge that individuals and businesses make decisions on the basis of money. That isn’t the same thing as giving climate concerns a lower relative priority. You can have climate as your highest priority, and still pursue that priority much more effectively by considering financial incentives and their effects, and to me that is what this article and connected study seem to be doing.
I see, but I’m saying that nobody is worrying about the economy here except as a means to make sure more solar power is deployed, in service of not making parts of the earth uninhabitable, and I don’t see how there could be an objection to that.
You are missing the point. Why have you, RamenJunkie not personally set up enough solar panels to provide everyone with all the energy they need? You can’t afford it? Well, surely there must be a bank somewhere that would loan you the
money. All that electricity would be really valuable. Oh, the bank doesn’t think the economics make sense.
One way or another the economic problems need to be addressed and, in order to do that, they must first be acknowledged and understood. That’s what the article was trying to do. You can’t just sweep it under the rug and figure some sucker will pay for it for the rest of us.
And you don’t think some kind of economic analysis is necessary before deciding if the private sector can “handle it” or exactly how the government can beat interveine?
You’re not exactly wrong about anything, but understanding exactly how the economics break down is important, regardless of how we break down responsibility between the public and private sectors.
Of course this is all academic when the country elects Republicans and the Democrats keep nominating neoliberals. At least with a private marketplace solution it wouldn’t get shredded the moment Republicans win power.
It’s not a binary question though. There is nothing wrong with the government interceding in a dysfunctional market, but the first step should be understanding what broke down and why.
Should the government intervene on the production side or the consumption side? Do we need more windmills and nuclear to compensate for Solar’s instability, or just more storage?
Spain did an incredible job converting over to renewals. Then they had an extended outage because they hadn’t properly considered reactive power difference between generators and solar/wind generation. Then, of course, the fossil fuel industry turned that into propaganda. Studies matter.
It’s not stupid to acknowledge that individuals and businesses make decisions on the basis of money. That isn’t the same thing as giving climate concerns a lower relative priority. You can have climate as your highest priority, and still pursue that priority much more effectively by considering financial incentives and their effects, and to me that is what this article and connected study seem to be doing.
Nothing matters if the planet is nearly uninhabitable.
I’m not sure what your point is
Im saying its insane to worry about the economy when we are facing down making parts of the earth uninhabitable.
I see, but I’m saying that nobody is worrying about the economy here except as a means to make sure more solar power is deployed, in service of not making parts of the earth uninhabitable, and I don’t see how there could be an objection to that.
Because we aren’t deploying it enough, because we are entertaining a return to coal or and fighting wars over oil still.
When we should be converting to solar and wind, reguardless of cost or return on investment.
I am pretty sure the article is in full agreement with you on these things and I think you are misunderstanding what it says.
When the last tree has fallen and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money.
You are missing the point. Why have you, RamenJunkie not personally set up enough solar panels to provide everyone with all the energy they need? You can’t afford it? Well, surely there must be a bank somewhere that would loan you the money. All that electricity would be really valuable. Oh, the bank doesn’t think the economics make sense.
One way or another the economic problems need to be addressed and, in order to do that, they must first be acknowledged and understood. That’s what the article was trying to do. You can’t just sweep it under the rug and figure some sucker will pay for it for the rest of us.
If the private sector can’t handle it then the government should do it, preferably with bull shit war machine funds, and provide it to the populace.
And you don’t think some kind of economic analysis is necessary before deciding if the private sector can “handle it” or exactly how the government can beat interveine?
You’re not exactly wrong about anything, but understanding exactly how the economics break down is important, regardless of how we break down responsibility between the public and private sectors.
Of course this is all academic when the country elects Republicans and the Democrats keep nominating neoliberals. At least with a private marketplace solution it wouldn’t get shredded the moment Republicans win power.
I mean, we have had like a decade or more now to prove out that the private sector can’t handle converting society to solar.
It’s not a binary question though. There is nothing wrong with the government interceding in a dysfunctional market, but the first step should be understanding what broke down and why.
Should the government intervene on the production side or the consumption side? Do we need more windmills and nuclear to compensate for Solar’s instability, or just more storage?
Spain did an incredible job converting over to renewals. Then they had an extended outage because they hadn’t properly considered reactive power difference between generators and solar/wind generation. Then, of course, the fossil fuel industry turned that into propaganda. Studies matter.