Re: theWatt Podcast 77

I'm of 2 minds about this.

In one sense I think that greed is partially to blame for our inefficient energy use. I see an 18 bedroom home with only 2 in use as greed (Note: I don't know how many rooms Al Gore actually uses, but I assume he doesn't have 18 people living in his home). Al Gore's neighbors will not like being outdone, and so they will build a similar home but perhaps they can't afford to power it with renewables. Frivolous consumption is something that is not appropriate in a world with scarce resources. I think greed might be another form of "negative externality", perhaps more subtle than others.

A similar example to taxing 16 of Al Gore's bedrooms is taxing fuel inefficient cars. We tax a Rolls Royce or a Humvee because they are fuel inefficient and we don't tax a Prius because it is more practical in today's world. This is essentially taxing greed/frivolous consumption. Nobody needs a Humvee when a more efficient car can do the same thing. Those who purchase a Humvee would still get taxed even if they managed to fuel it with cellulosic ethanol (equivalent to powering Al Gore's home with renewables).

Should we still tax a Humvee if we can manage to fuel with a CO2 free fuel? I think yes, but others may think no.

At the same time, I still believe that people should be able to choose what they do with their money, but maybe we should try to curb greed? I'm not sure. We can't deny that competition and choice can be good for society. I think we have to direct this competition to be more helpful to society though.

These are the types of questions that don't have answers, but they're good to talk about.