Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This seems disingenuous twice:

1. You're welcome to argue that, but you haven't here. You've just stated it.

2. You shouldn't supplant one topic with another. High energy prices kill people, because energy drives the cost of everything, and people can direct less value into things that keep them healthy if they're spending a greater proportion of their income on survival. You can say "also air should be clean", fine, but not "Don't think about prices! Look over here instead!"



1. Air pollution kills more.

2. You can have your cake and eat it, if you drop the requirement to buy electricity at the price of the most expensive component in the mix. Spain did just that and they're currently experiencing an industrial revival thanks to comparatively low energy prices.


I think Rawgabbit is trying to get at the point that you need to price in the externalities to find the actual value of something.

They're trying to explain in good faith as far as I can tell.


>High energy prices kill people

Indeed, and so does air pollution. Having (accurate) prices on both allows the market to reduce pollution and energy costs efficiently.


No, I would argue I am correctly framing externalized costs ie the tragedy of the commons.


The context is "You want to raise the price of energy to make wind etc competitive?"

Adding a separate topic seems like a distraction. Everyone knows about negative externalities. I don't think we need to rehearse the same points to obscure the specific one I'm asking about.




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

Search: