I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
Absolutely agree that, at this point, he’s probably right, especially if he were to go all-in on the free market aspect and cut 100% of fossil fuel subsidies. However, it does bug me that he’s clearly ignoring how that “free market economy” produces those oil/gas/coal company vultures to begin with. The primary issue I have against vanilla libertarianism is their insistance that deregulation is a solution to everything when we’re living in a time that’s obviously worse off because of companies and individuals who weren’t being properly regulated.
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
Absolutely agree that, at this point, he’s probably right, especially if he were to go all-in on the free market aspect and cut 100% of fossil fuel subsidies. However, it does bug me that he’s clearly ignoring how that “free market economy” produces those oil/gas/coal company vultures to begin with. The primary issue I have against vanilla libertarianism is their insistance that deregulation is a solution to everything when we’re living in a time that’s obviously worse off because of companies and individuals who weren’t being properly regulated.
Let’s hear how he deals with bears.
For anyone interested: The Town That Went Feral
.
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
They’ll just add solar and gas to the pile and keep the coal.