aflurry wrote: Pretorian, that last analysis was really weird to me.
OK, the people who installed the panels got paid for their time. But, if they weren't spending their time installing solar panels, they'd be getting paid for doing something else. So it's a wash.
no, illogical wash is what you said. If they werent installing solar panels, they would be eating raw cock with no salt, or making somebody else eating it by outcompeting other people in other industries.
aflurry wrote:They may be spending their pay on chocolate, cigarettes & whores. Or they may turn around and spend it on their own set of solar panels, just like the original person did. Especially after hearing about what a good investment it is from the buyer.
and it will have absolutely same effect, great point.
aflurry wrote: Likewise, the person who bought the original panels may just as likely take the good investment proceeds and further insulate their house
and it will have absolutely same effect, great point
aflurry wrote:or send it to an organization that promotes the education of women in underdeveloped countries, a policy which has been shown to significantly reduce birthrate.
unless you talk about fertility education, i really see little point in that , but yes there are ways to spend money with a future pollution reduction, paying for abortions, sterilizations, instigating tribal and religious riots and warfare, ets.
aflurry wrote:None of the elements of your Pandora's box are the result of solar panels specifically, but of economic activity in general.
exactly so.
aflurry wrote:The only difference is that in once case you get a single working solar panel and in the other case you don't
i was talking about general pollution level, not about private belongings.
aflurry wrote:Perhaps you are working off a generalized application of Jeavon's paradox where any alleviation resource demand from increased efficiency will lead to price reduction and then greater demand. But this is an exceedingly liberal application of Jeavon's original observation. Something that is very typical of this site.
Application of money in the correct way can reduce chaos, which reduces the frequency that long term benefit must be sacrificed for short term. It can be applied to education, which is inversely correlated with fertility, especially education of women. It can be applied to conservation efforts, which, contrary to most people's understanding on this board, is not subject to Jeavon's paradox, though it may be subject to many other difficulties.
no i am just trying to apply a common sense here. You cannot benefit yourself in $ equivalent and reduce pollution simultaneously, unless you taking away these $ equivalents, or in another words ability to pollute , from other people.
PS Imagine that every household in the world got emission-free electricity for free, and businesses got it for 1/10th of what they pay now. Will it solve all problems? No, it will be the end of the world as we know it. I doubt it will take 100 years to saw off the last oak.