Personal tools

Argument: Clean energy subsidies necessary to secure public benefits

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 01:16, 4 October 2011; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

James Surowiecki. "A waste of energy?" The New Yorker. October 10th, 2011: "But it’s also true that there are a few industries where it makes a lot of sense for the government to complement the market by subsidizing research and development. Renewable energy is one of them. That’s because the energy market is not like most other markets. Indeed, the economics of alternative energy are such that private investors, left to their own devices, are bound to underinvest in it, since the considerable social benefits—cleaner air, fewer greenhouse emissions—accrue to everyone, not just to direct customers. That means that the economic rate of return is significantly less than the social rate of return. Energy markets are also dominated by entrenched, regulated companies, and that reduces the incentive for investment; despite the immense size of the energy market, as of 2005 spending on energy R. & D. accounted for just two per cent of total spending on R. & D. in the U.S. This creates an opportunity for the government to add value by investing smartly, just as it can add value by spending money on education or infrastructure, other areas where the social returns are greater than the economic ones."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits