Comments on: World Bank and UK Government on Climate Change Implications of Development http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4425 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JamesG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4425&cpage=1#comment-10203 JamesG Tue, 27 May 2008 09:20:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4425#comment-10203 Jackson I'd agree with you that 3,4 and 5 are silly. But if you look at the possibility that the payback for the consumer is guaranteed - say in geothermal heating/cooling then the only problem is installation cost. If the government subsidizes the cost then it is similar to getting a long term loan at low rates. So I don't think the economy or the individual is adversely affected. After all we'd all go geothermal and save money if we could afford the installation because the payback is energy savings is good. One thing that distorts this process I have noticed is that sharks are using the subsidies to allow them to charge even more while often selling inappropriate and sometimes useless equipment. India and China (especially) can quite happily pay for their own installation and many subsidies to Africa, for example, seem to be coming from China at the moment too - in exchange for resources. Jackson
I’d agree with you that 3,4 and 5 are silly. But if you look at the possibility that the payback for the consumer is guaranteed – say in geothermal heating/cooling then the only problem is installation cost. If the government subsidizes the cost then it is similar to getting a long term loan at low rates. So I don’t think the economy or the individual is adversely affected. After all we’d all go geothermal and save money if we could afford the installation because the payback is energy savings is good.

One thing that distorts this process I have noticed is that sharks are using the subsidies to allow them to charge even more while often selling inappropriate and sometimes useless equipment.

India and China (especially) can quite happily pay for their own installation and many subsidies to Africa, for example, seem to be coming from China at the moment too – in exchange for resources.

]]> By: jackson_foi http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4425&cpage=1#comment-10202 jackson_foi Fri, 23 May 2008 23:51:14 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4425#comment-10202 It is hard to imagine that there would be any rich countries left after this program got up to speed. Lets say that a solar alternative costs $22,000. The rich country cost per capita would be that according to item 1. There are probably many of the US population who could afford to do this but the total for the country would be $6.6 Trillion and would be assessed to many who could not. Lets say half, so those who can now have an individual cost of $44,000. While that seems like quite an investment, there is a payout on solar, and at some point the investment would be returned. By item 2, the government subsidizes the cost of item 1, so the actual cost to the individual goes up because the government doesn't create wealth and is inefficient in its redistribution. By item 3, we increase the cost of the installation again in order to fund the carbon counting system, but don't make the solar installation any better or more efficient. By item 4, we increase the cost of the installation again in order to fund another level of accountants. Lets say that the individual installation now costs $50,000. By item 5, we hit the home run. As your counterpart in the developing countries (say China) cannot afford the installation either, you get to buy his, and your cost is now $100,000. Is it at least possible that the world isn't worth that much on average, despite how nice the view is from some places. It is hard to imagine that there would be any rich countries left after this program got up to speed.

Lets say that a solar alternative costs $22,000. The rich country cost per capita would be that according to item 1. There are probably many of the US population who could afford to do this but the total for the country would be $6.6 Trillion and would be assessed to many who could not. Lets say half, so those who can now have an individual cost of $44,000. While that seems like quite an investment, there is a payout on solar, and at some point the investment would be returned.

By item 2, the government subsidizes the cost of item 1, so the actual cost to the individual goes up because the government doesn’t create wealth and is inefficient in its redistribution.

By item 3, we increase the cost of the installation again in order to fund the carbon counting system, but don’t make the solar installation any better or more efficient.

By item 4, we increase the cost of the installation again in order to fund another level of accountants. Lets say that the individual installation now costs $50,000.

By item 5, we hit the home run. As your counterpart in the developing countries (say China) cannot afford the installation either, you get to buy his, and your cost is now $100,000.

Is it at least possible that the world isn’t worth that much on average, despite how nice the view is from some places.

]]>