Paul, Why? What’s the problem? I was learning a lot from reading the emails. I read what I like on LincolnTalk and I delete the rest. We are adults and can figure out how to do that. Pat Gray
> On Mar 28, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Paul Shorb <[email protected]> wrote: > > FYI, the LT moderators have asked Dennis & me to take any further colloquy on > this offline. > - Paul > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:14 AM Dennis Liu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Paul Shorb wrote: > You misunderstand the proposal if you think its main > motivation or justification is to benefit the builders or residents in future > new buildings. It should be clear from the slides we shared in our two > webinars and at Town Meeting that the main motivation is to take one small, > initial step out of many that we need to take to slow down climate change. It > just happens, so it was worth mentioning, that this small initial step has > some cost advantages for builders and owners albeit. But as I mentioned > elsewhere today on LT, I don't trust all builders to respond immediately to > the modest cost delta, so a mandate is warranted. It's ECON 101 that the free > market fails to produce the best result, and government controls layered on > top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, in the case of major > "negative externalities" associated with self-interested decisions - right? > > > > I apologize if I misunderstood the intent behind the proposal, perhaps giving > your argument too much credit by reading into what you wrote below as making > the point that builders/homeowners *WILL* benefit. I am glad that you have > clarified your point that your/the committee’s main motivation is to force > Lincoln residents to take a symbolic stand against climate change, and that > any financial benefits are a mere side effect. > > > > It is telling that you use the phrase, “I don’t trust all builders to respond > immediately to the modest cost delta, so a mandate is warranted.” So, Paul, > are you making the concession that there is a HIGHER cost associated with > this proposed law? And that any benefits would be down the road / over time, > since it will take years to recoup the additional initial expense? > > > > At the risk of invoking shouts of Godwin’s law, your phrasing is precisely > what troubles classical liberals/libertarians like me. History is replete > with technocrats/socialists who think that the elite, the more highly > educated, the ones who deserve to govern have a moral responsibility to SAVE > ignorant folks from the consequences of their own, foolish decisions. You > are literally saying that you don’t TRUST folks to make decisions on their > own, even when it’s to their benefit (in your opinion). Does that not strike > you as being perhaps . . . a touch arrogant? That you (and your fellow > committee members??) think you know best for everyone, and thus must force > this change on everyone via passing a new law, because you don’t TRUST folks > to act in their own self-interest? > > > > Again, I am just highlighting that one cannot have it BOTH WAYS. If > all-electric construction IS more cost-effective in the long run, then why > would we need a law to mandate it? Who needs to be forced to save money? > UNLESS. . . the change is actually NOT cost-effective over the long run? OR > that there are additional, non-monetary expenses (say, a PITA factor, or less > reliability, or inability to heat to a target temperature in cold weather, or > any of another dozen PERSONAL preferences) that tip the scale in the opposite > direction? > > > > Also, it’s fascinating that you cite “ECON 101” when you mention that “the > free market fails to produce the best result, and government controls layered > on top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, in the case of > major "negative externalities" associated with self-interested decisions.” > > > > I am certainly not an economist, nor do I play one on TV, but I am > nevertheless confident that ECON 101 teaches us that when the price of > something INCREASES, demand DECREASES, and vice versa. The simple law of > supply and demand is what’s taught on day 1 of any introduction to (micro) > economics > (https://medium.com/impact-economics/economics-101-supply-e35bcaabe11f > <https://medium.com/impact-economics/economics-101-supply-e35bcaabe11f>). > The takeaway here is that: > > > > if this law INCREASES the cost of housing in Lincoln, then demand will > DECREASE, meaning fewer folks will want to / be able to afford to live in > Lincoln; and > if this law somehow decreases the cost of housing in Lincoln by making things > more affordable, then demand will increase – but then one WOULD NOT NEED a > law in the first place, because rational homeowners will want it. > > > To your point about externalities, I will quibble in a minor note that this > is not quite Econ 101, but maybe Econ 103, lol. You are absolutely right in > that “externalities” are an example of market failures > (https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html > <https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html>). The > “tragedy of the commons” and all that > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons>). I fully agree that > climate change IS a (classic!) example of an externality, and that the best > way to address it is by building it into a market structure. Really, the > best solution is to provide INCENTIVES to folks who are using fossil fuels to > reduce that use, and to permit the market to find replacements for it. > > > > As I’ve argued previously, BY FAR the best solution today to reduce these > emissions on a GLOBAL SCALE – literally, the one thing we can do TODAY that > would actually HAVE AN EFFECT – is to switch more electricity generation from > coal to natural gas. Per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, natural gas > is WAY better than coal. To use market incentives to make it happen, all we > need to do is to take the government boot off the neck of the fracking > industry – the more natural gas we produce, the lower the greenhouse gas > emissions! NOBODY disputes this! “But, gosh, fracking is bad, doncha > know?!? We can’t PERMIT that! We’d lose all of our green credentials!” > Ironically, if one wishes to invoke “climate justice is racial justice”, coal > burning is the WORST offender – it generates the most air pollution and > negative health impacts. So if one TRULY cared about “racial justice”, one > would be in the streets, demanding more fracking so that more natural gas > could replace coal. AND these protestors SHOULD be demanding that we build > as many nuclear plants as possible – the cleanest, non-emitting, safest > source of electricity available to humans today. > > > > But back to using market mechanisms to solve for this externalities. The > best way? CARBON TAXES. As popularized by local Harvard economics professor > Greg Mankiw as “the Pigou Club” > (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/smart_taxes.pdf > <https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/smart_taxes.pdf> and > http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html > <http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html>), carbon > taxes is the ideal way to let the free market sort this out. By imposing a > carbon tax, it provides INCENTIVE for folks to use less fossil fuels, and > INCENTIVE for inventors to work on delivering better renewables. > > > > Of course, we have to acknowledge that . . . with a barrel full of irony . . > . that the Russian invasion of Ukraine added to skyrocketing inflation is > MANNA FROM HEAVEN for those concerned about climate change. > > > > Why? Because . . . the high price of oil and gas is HAVING THE SAME EFFECT > as a carbon tax! As we learned above from Econ 101, when we have an increase > in price, we have a decrease in demand! People around the world are using > less fossil fuel! Greenhouse gas emissions are lower than what they would be > otherwise! Thanks to . . . Putin and the trillions in new, massive > government spending! Surely you and fellow green committee members will join > me in rejoicing at this unintended consequence? > > > > * * * > > I will make one last point here. In 2018, the world collectively emitted 49 > billion tons of greenhouse gas. The United States accounted for 5.79 billion > tons. China and India combined accounted for more than 15 billion tons. > https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions > <https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions> > > > Even if by the wave of a magic wand the United States completely shut down > every single use of fossil fuels in this country, that would be less than 12% > of global emissions. > > > > How much of that 5.79 billion tons of emissions would be reduced if we > *FORCED* and spent a trillion dollars to convert all buildings (not just new > ones) to electricity? While proponents have tossed around numbers that > suggest that 25% of US emissions are from heating, please remember that > converting to electricity does *NOT* mean that we’ve reduced emissions by > 25%; electricity is mostly generated from fossil fuel, after all. So, let’s > be generous and estimate, complete WAG, that forcing all buildings to convert > (as astronomical costs) would save 20% of that 25%, which means we’d save 5%, > or 290 million tons. That would be about one-half of one percent of global > emissions. > > > > Now, if we do further math and consider just forcing NEW construction to be > all-electric, then . . . let’s see . . . it’d be on the order of . . . maybe > one-hundreth-of-a-percent over the next decade? > > > > And consider what the impact is for *LINCOLN* to adopt this new law. Hmmm… > sorry, I don’t think my calculator goes down that much. Ah, but what’s the > *cost* to Lincoln folks? It’s real money out being forced out of the pockets > of current residents who want to remodel or rebuild; and it’s an additional > burden on housing prices for anyone that wants to move here. > > > > In return for what? “Sending a signal” to . . . the legislature that a rich > suburban enclave is willing to burden its residents in the name of virtue > signaling in the hope that this will encourage the hundreds of other towns in > the state to do the same? > > > > Vty, > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > From: Paul Shorb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:29 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: I'm just gobsmacked | RE: [LincolnTalk] Town meeting Article > 40/31 > > > > Dennis - > > 1. You misunderstand the proposal if you think its main motivation or > justification is to benefit the builders or residents in future new > buildings. It should be clear from the slides we shared in our two webinars > and at Town Meeting that the main motivation is to take one small, initial > step out of many that we need to take to slow down climate change. It just > happens, so it was worth mentioning, that this small initial step has some > cost advantages for builders and owners albeit. But as I mentioned elsewhere > today on LT, I don't trust all builders to respond immediately to the modest > cost delta, so a mandate is warranted. It's ECON 101 that the free market > fails to produce the best result, and government controls layered on top of > free market mechanisms produce a better result, in the case of major > "negative externalities" associated with self-interested decisions - right? > > > > 2. Do you read my posts that respond to yours? I feel like I responded to > this point earlier. > > It's uncontested that fossil fuels have powered great economic growth which > has lifted many out of poverty. However, if you think that trend line can > continue so happily, you are ignoring the evidence about climate change. The > good news is that human ingenuity has already come up with most of what we > need to stop relying on fossil fuels (wind, solar, heat pumps, etc.) with > more on the way (better energy storage, "green" hydrogen, new forms of > nuclear, etc.) The problem is how fast we need to make the switch - that's > going to require concerted social and political action. > > > > - Paul > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:20 PM Dennis Liu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > With all due respect: > > > > If it is true, as has been asserted, that building your new home to be > all-electric “will not make the more expensive to build or operate”, then we > would not need a law to force people to do so. One cannot have it both ways! > If X is actually better for folks, then one would not need a law to force > folks to do X! Even a casual reader of history will read about those in > government who cry, “the foolish people are just ignorant, and don’t see > what’s good for them; we are just doing this on their behalf, forcing them to > undertake what will be more beneficial for them! Don’t you get it? We know > better than you do!” > > Similarly, let us not forget that it’s not just about the money. Choosing X > instead of Y can be driven not just be money, but by other benefits. Some > folks might prefer certain attributes of Y, even if Y might cost less. As > one example – if you live in a 3,000 sq foot house, you would almost > certainly save money if you lived in a 2,000 sq ft house – so why would you > want to live in the bigger house? You might save money by driving a Prius or > a Tesla, so why shouldn’t we force people to only buy those vehicles? > > Is it so hard to see that individuals can make the best decisions for > themselves, to decide what’s in their best interests? > > > > > “Climate justice is racial justice?” Again, with all due respect, this is > just . . . man, I lack the words. So we are clear – thanks to the growth of > free-market (ish) economics in developing nations over the last three > decades, primarily in China and India but also other developing countries, > OVER A BILLION PEOPLE HAVE CLIMBED OUT OF EXTREME POVERTY. It’s an amazing > feat! And one of the biggest drivers of that climb out of poverty – THE > AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE ENERGY, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS. > > Yes, read that again. Improved agriculture, the growth of manufacturing, > expanding free trade, migration from rural to urban areas have helped > billions of people climb out of horrible, subsistence-level (or below!!!) > living. The middle-class is explosively growing. What drives all of that? > Affordable, available energy. Countless families have transitioned out of > subsistence farming, with heating and cooking using wood or dung and > resulting in terrible casualties from lung illnesses, thanks to the > availability of gas-powered machinery and available electric grids. > > The sheer . . . well, I won’t label it, but I will say that it astonishes me > what folks living in the 1% in affluent American suburbs (and make no > mistakes, if you’re a working adult in Lincoln, you’re almost certainly in > the global 1%; you just need $34k in annual income) will make arguments on > behalf of the ”oppressed”, and make claims of “racial justice”, WHILE TRYING > TO ELIMINATE THAT WHICH HELPED PROPEL MORE THAN A BILLION PEOPLE OUT OF > POVERTY: affordable energy powered by, yes, fossil fuels. > > The primary reason why making these little symbolic, virtue-signaling > gestures in rich American suburbs will have zero measurable impact on climate > gas emissions is because America got rich by burning lots of coal and oil; > now China and India are doing the same thing, lifting billions of poverty, > thanks to burning lots of coal and oil. Who the heck are we to tell China > and India, “hey, you guys missed the boat, you need to stop producing that > critically needed energy, and immiserate your people!” > > Want *real* justice for the poor and oppressed around the globe? Stand by > and let them climb out of poverty in the same way America did, starting a > century ago, and focus instead on transitioning *mass* energy production to > natural gas and nuclear, keep working on renewable energy, and *let human > ingenuity research ways of mitigating the effects of climate change and even > turning it back through terraforming measures.* > > https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty > <https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty> > https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/global-poverty-united-nations.html#:~:text=By%202015%2C%20the%20share%20of,extreme%20poverty%2C%20surpassing%20the%20goal > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/global-poverty-united-nations.html#:~:text=By%202015%2C%20the%20share%20of,extreme%20poverty%2C%20surpassing%20the%20goal>. > > > > I’m just . . . at a loss for more words. > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > From: Lincoln <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Paul Shorb > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:50 PM > To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Town meeting Article 40/31 > > > > I would like to respond to some recent posts here that seem to critique a > move towards fossil-fuel-free homes as an expensive luxury for high-minded > hypocrites who blissfully ignore adverse cost impacts on those economically > less well-off. Here are some relevant facts that may be of interest to LT > readers. > > > > Requiring new homes to be all-electric will not make them more expensive to > build or operate. In fact, due to the almost miraculous energy efficiency of > modern heat pumps, they tend to be LESS expensive to operate, thereby > benefiting not only high-end homeowners but also less-affluent renters. (Not > to mention the health benefits of cleaner indoor air.) A recent state study > show the cost benefits are even better for multi-family housing than for > single family homes. > > > > All-electric homes are not required to have an emergency generator. Whether > someone wants to have an emergency generator is a personal choice; many homes > powered by fossil fuels choose to have one. We mention emergency generators > to underscore that we expect they would still be allowed as an option, when > and if Lincoln adopts a bylaw. Even if you assume a generator to be an > additional cost associated with an all-electric house, that likely will be > offset by reduced operating costs. > > > > With regard to DIE, it's hard to come up with something with more disparate > impact on people of color than our current fossil-fuel economy and the > climate change it is causing. > > In America it typically is lower-income people - often people of color - who > live closest to fossil fuel extraction areas, fuel refineries, power plants, > and areas thickest with vehicle exhaust fumes, and who thereby suffer the > most from the local pollution effects. > > Around the world, it is regions populated mainly by black and brown people > that are getting hit the hardest by the many impacts of climate change. Those > are the people who are most at risk of being pushed back into poverty and > worse by extreme weather events, droughts, food shortages, and desperate > migration attempts and ensuing political strife - even though they have done > much less than the more developed, majority-white nations have done to cause > the current climate crisis. > > That's why it is rightly said that "climate justice is racial justice". > > > > - Paul Shorb > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:16 PM Stephanie Smoot <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I found irony that they were adding all these programs but a waiting list for > senior tax work off spaces! > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:09 PM Richard Panetta <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > So did anyone else find any irony in a report given about inclusion diversity > equity and anti racism then the very next article the presenting sponsor when > questioned about losing electricity stated well you can JUST get a propane > generator for those needs. Never mind a good generator can cost $5000 plus > along with the yearly costs of the tank and propane. Just in case your non > fossil fuel home loses power. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/ > <http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/>. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/>. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln > <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>. > > -- > > Regards, > > Stephanie Smoot > > > > 857 368-9175 work > > 781 941-6842 personal cell > > 617 595-5217 work cell > > 126 Chestnut Circle > > Lincoln, MA 01773 > > > > > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/ > <http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/>. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/>. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln > <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>. > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
