I've received some interesting flack for my recent quote in this Wall Street Journal article. The descriptive / arguably normative jist of the article is aptly summarized by its title: Even Boulder Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green. My basic perspective on sub-federal efforts such as these is that they're worthy, laudable efforts that should be duplicated. But as my quote endeavored to emphasize, getting consumers to respond meaningfuly to demand-side management and energy efficiency initiatives is tough going. A strong price on carbon would go a long way toward improving this.
One rather odd thing in the story is Roger Pielke's absurd comment that charging our personal gadgets wipes out the conservation value of motion-detector lights. Additionality, anyone? The problem with the comment is that the students didn't go out and buy gadgets just because the University had installed new lights! Also, the gadgets would have been charged anyway, even without the purchase of the new lights. So in no way does charging them negate the conservation value of the lights.
1 comments:
Kevin, the comparison with the lights was the WSJs. My focus in the class was on the growth of demand. Hope this helps to clarify.
Post a Comment