by yesplease » Mon 14 Jul 2008, 02:28:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoWorries', 'I')s it just me, or is this truly a bizarre statement from someone who holds impeccable credentials? If what he's saying is correct, then all this fuss is really much ado about nothing.
I have never seen a debate so polarized. (And my background is in law, incidentally, not economics.)
As someone aware of marginal cost, it seems he's merely running the numbers, so to speak. Short of an overnight jump to $500/gallon, as oil goes higher people will switch to alternatives, be them more efficient or replacements, or both. As much as we may enjoy it, oil consumption in automobiles alone accounts for
~$.27-1.78 trillion bucks per year in externalized costs. Sitting in traffic and staying home from work due to pollution only reduce economic benefits, and ultimately limit GDP, as can be seen in other countries who have implemented policies aimed at efficiency improvements. Taking into account fuel prices only exacerbates these costs. Offhand, if we have dumped all the money spent in Iraq on efficient EVs for everyone in America, we could save ~$.45-1.9 trillion/year and effectively eliminate our oil addiction. In ~3-20 years we would have saved enough to switch to a GHG free electrical grid, which would save even more in externalized costs considering for instance how dirty coal emissions are.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!