5 ms·

What I don't get is why policy makers doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth. Just start taxing emission and invest heavily in green technology

by farorm 10y ago

What I don't get is why policy makers doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth. Just start taxing emission and invest heavily in green technology and we could be on our way to start a new industrial revolution!

davesque 10y ago
Three words: oil industry lobbyists.
- alttab 10y ago
  Only part of the equation.
- draggnar 10y ago
  Actually I think it's one word: China. Companies are competing on a global scale.
artursapek 10y ago
Lobbying.
andys627 10y ago
Policy makers are "put in office" by those that would pay these taxes.
- josu 10y ago
  While this is true, I think that there is much more to it. FinTech is taking business away from one of the strongest lobbies in the world, the financial sector, and the regulators all around the world seem to be embracing it, even bitcoin.
izend 10y ago
It isn't that simple when there isn't a global agreement on taxing emission, look at what is happening in Ontario: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-electricity-plans-1.3780440 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-electricity-pl...
- llukas 10y ago
  Ontario generates 93% of electricity from non-CO2 generating sources. They still signed contracts to add 18000 MW of renewable power in 20 years. Cancelling 1000MW contract in that light doesnt seem so horrible.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    Ontario has hydro sources and Nuclear. At least on the hydro front, it's a difficult comparison. Quebec even more so - they have a lot of hydro opportunity. France generates 85% from Nuclear, so effectively 'emissions free', but of course that comes with other complications. I believe that Nuclear will be the way forward. Renewables are just not getting 'good enough fast enough' in a pragmatic way ... if we spent as much researching Nuclear I'll bet we'd have much safer choices by now. And most 'new reactors' are very safe. In particular CANDU reactors designed by Canada - and even they are decades old. The reason Nuclear reactors are 'so expensive' to build has more to do with liability than anything. 'Insurance' is the expense - plus - there are very few entities capable of doing it and they have a 'military industrial complex' type oligarchy on it (i.e. it doesn't matter what the next-gen US fighter jet does, it will cost zillions - because he economic structure is there to make sure it costs that much). A 'truly progressive' country should be investing in this as an option, the upside is just too good: enough Uranium to last centuries, with effectively no CO2.
dmix 10y ago
The US government's investments in both solar power and clean coal have been either failures or ended up costs wayyy more and taking twice as long. Typical of modern government projects but still bad enough where just saying "throw tax dollars at green tech" isn't as straight-forward solution as it seems. Why not reduce taxes for corporations building green tech? And provide R&D credit to pay the salaries of engineers working on the problem? Reduce capital gains taxes on investments in green tech? Make it easier for really smart immigrants to come to the US to work on the problem? Create a commission who's job is to review and simplify/eliminate/modernize regulations to reduce barriers to entry in the marketplace? etc. There are lots of ways to incentivize industry to solve this problem instead of adding more taxes and hoping the government works as a good VC. The Canadian government tried (and is trying) the angel investor/VC thing here and it hasn't worked at all well. They do stuff like matching investments of other angels or giving loans to entrepreneurs. I'd much rather they made it easier for me to start and run a company by reducing the stuff they are already doing instead of doing more things... like pretending they are private investors. For example, they recently announced a Startup Founder Visa which I think is a great idea and a step in the right direction: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Not really sure about that. The cost of solar has come down dramatically and the technology has made huge strides in efficiency, largely because of the government subsidies. Sure, it's a financial failure for the government, but usually government subsidies are not intended to run a profit (lest the government be accused of profiteering or crowding out private investment).
  - dmix 10y ago
    University grants are a different beast. I was addressing the direct investments made in two organizations. The problem isn't the perception of government backed businesses being 'wrong' for profiteering (or competing with industry?). Most people would be happy if the government made successful organizations that had a real impact (NASA in the 1960s). But successful large-scale government projects are rare today. Any gov tech gains in the past couple of decades were usually a minor side-effect of other massive investments (see: wars, intelligence gathering). Modern nation states are simply not known for being good speculative investors nor good at running projects efficiently or cost effectively. Even when it's via private industry collaboration. But they are good at being politicians (ie, creating tax policy, managing regulations, etc). So my view is that they should focus on that and let industry be good at building technology.
CountSessine 10y ago
What I don't get is why private industry doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth. Just start manufacturing green technology free of government incentives and subsidies and we could be on our way to a new industrial revolution!
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "What I don't get is why private industry doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth." There are thousands of companies trying. The inherent problem is that solar and wind are generally crap ways to make it work. If you live near the equator, and don't regularly have access to electricity, and need a panel to power your TV for a few hours a day - then that's 'impact' but in the West it's really, really hard to make work.
aaron695 10y ago
Or you could bury gold bars really deep and people could develop technology to dig it up to start a new industrial revolution! Not saying it won't work, just be aware of what you are suggesting.

by farorm 10y ago

davesque 10y ago

Three words: oil industry lobbyists.

alttab 10y ago
Only part of the equation.
draggnar 10y ago
Actually I think it's one word: China. Companies are competing on a global scale.

artursapek 10y ago

Lobbying.

andys627 10y ago

Policy makers are "put in office" by those that would pay these taxes.

josu 10y ago
While this is true, I think that there is much more to it. FinTech is taking business away from one of the strongest lobbies in the world, the financial sector, and the regulators all around the world seem to be embracing it, even bitcoin.

izend 10y ago

It isn't that simple when there isn't a global agreement on taxing emission, look at what is happening in Ontario: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-electricity-plans-1.3780440 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-electricity-pl...

llukas 10y ago
Ontario generates 93% of electricity from non-CO2 generating sources. They still signed contracts to add 18000 MW of renewable power in 20 years. Cancelling 1000MW contract in that light doesnt seem so horrible.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Ontario has hydro sources and Nuclear. At least on the hydro front, it's a difficult comparison. Quebec even more so - they have a lot of hydro opportunity. France generates 85% from Nuclear, so effectively 'emissions free', but of course that comes with other complications. I believe that Nuclear will be the way forward. Renewables are just not getting 'good enough fast enough' in a pragmatic way ... if we spent as much researching Nuclear I'll bet we'd have much safer choices by now. And most 'new reactors' are very safe. In particular CANDU reactors designed by Canada - and even they are decades old. The reason Nuclear reactors are 'so expensive' to build has more to do with liability than anything. 'Insurance' is the expense - plus - there are very few entities capable of doing it and they have a 'military industrial complex' type oligarchy on it (i.e. it doesn't matter what the next-gen US fighter jet does, it will cost zillions - because he economic structure is there to make sure it costs that much). A 'truly progressive' country should be investing in this as an option, the upside is just too good: enough Uranium to last centuries, with effectively no CO2.

dmix 10y ago

The US government's investments in both solar power and clean coal have been either failures or ended up costs wayyy more and taking twice as long. Typical of modern government projects but still bad enough where just saying "throw tax dollars at green tech" isn't as straight-forward solution as it seems. Why not reduce taxes for corporations building green tech? And provide R&D credit to pay the salaries of engineers working on the problem? Reduce capital gains taxes on investments in green tech? Make it easier for really smart immigrants to come to the US to work on the problem? Create a commission who's job is to review and simplify/eliminate/modernize regulations to reduce barriers to entry in the marketplace? etc. There are lots of ways to incentivize industry to solve this problem instead of adding more taxes and hoping the government works as a good VC. The Canadian government tried (and is trying) the angel investor/VC thing here and it hasn't worked at all well. They do stuff like matching investments of other angels or giving loans to entrepreneurs. I'd much rather they made it easier for me to start and run a company by reducing the stuff they are already doing instead of doing more things... like pretending they are private investors. For example, they recently announced a Startup Founder Visa which I think is a great idea and a step in the right direction: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/

nostrademons 10y ago
Not really sure about that. The cost of solar has come down dramatically and the technology has made huge strides in efficiency, largely because of the government subsidies. Sure, it's a financial failure for the government, but usually government subsidies are not intended to run a profit (lest the government be accused of profiteering or crowding out private investment).
- dmix 10y ago
  University grants are a different beast. I was addressing the direct investments made in two organizations. The problem isn't the perception of government backed businesses being 'wrong' for profiteering (or competing with industry?). Most people would be happy if the government made successful organizations that had a real impact (NASA in the 1960s). But successful large-scale government projects are rare today. Any gov tech gains in the past couple of decades were usually a minor side-effect of other massive investments (see: wars, intelligence gathering). Modern nation states are simply not known for being good speculative investors nor good at running projects efficiently or cost effectively. Even when it's via private industry collaboration. But they are good at being politicians (ie, creating tax policy, managing regulations, etc). So my view is that they should focus on that and let industry be good at building technology.

CountSessine 10y ago

What I don't get is why private industry doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth. Just start manufacturing green technology free of government incentives and subsidies and we could be on our way to a new industrial revolution!

jomamaxx 10y ago
"What I don't get is why private industry doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth." There are thousands of companies trying. The inherent problem is that solar and wind are generally crap ways to make it work. If you live near the equator, and don't regularly have access to electricity, and need a panel to power your TV for a few hours a day - then that's 'impact' but in the West it's really, really hard to make work.

aaron695 10y ago

Or you could bury gold bars really deep and people could develop technology to dig it up to start a new industrial revolution! Not saying it won't work, just be aware of what you are suggesting.