We couldn't possibly be further apart. "socially desirable outcomes"
and "social cost" of energy are not concepts that I accept. Not that
they don't exist. I just have a problem with who defines it. Is it
"socially desirable" to raise the cost of energy to the majority of the
world's poor who already can't afford it?
Besides, I think you missed the point of the link I provided below. It
purports that the real reason for the lighting efficiency standards had
nothing to do with energy efficiency. It was a ploy by lighting
manufacturers to ban the items that they found insufficiently profitable
because there was too much competition. That's not a socially desirable
thing either.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/4/2014 12:01 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Consumer choice is good and will lead to the socially desirable
> outcomes only if consumers face the correct prices. Since energy
> prices (both electricity and gasoline) in the US are far below the
> social cost, regulations such as these or the car fuel efficiency
> standards are inevitable. It would be far better to raise energy
> taxes significantly and let consumers choose, I agree. But there is
> little political appetite for that, and so I support the second-best
> solution.
>
> Cheers, Nathan
>
> On 4 Jan 2014, at 03:50, Chuck Norcutt
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should check the conservative's viewpoint... and it has
>> nothing to do with being green or saving energy. :-)
>> <http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541430?slideout=1>
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|