Quote:
Originally Posted by gnathaniel
Very good points! I misconstrued your prior post a bit. The uncompensated externalities of power generation, including pollution with mercury and other heavy metals and increased GHG emissions, aren't trivial either, though. I've also read some good arguments that incandescents needed to be suppressed a bit to spur production of LEDs. Sometimes new technologies need subsidy to get over initial R&D 'humps' toward market viability. But yeah, mostly I agree with you that the incandescent phaseout was poorly done and not necessarily as motivated by concern for the common good as has been portrayed.
|
People who use a hazardous material need to pay for its proper disposal. Those who don't use it shouldn't pay to dispose of it. The only way that doesn't happen is when the government not only doesn't hold the users accountable for disposal, but actually subsidizes their usage by making the disposal a public cost. In that same vein, any technology that needs a financial push to get over any hump isn't ready for prime time, and certainly shouldn't be mandated regardless of any benefits, actual or perceived. Almost by definition such action requires at least one of the imvolved parties to commit a conflict of interest.
Threaded Mode
