I agree. I was finding the dialogue very informative. On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:37 PM Pat Gray <patg...@oatbit.com> wrote:
> 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 <paul.sh...@gmail.com> 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 <bigheadden...@gmail.com> > 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). >> The takeaway here is that: >> >> >> >> 1. 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 >> 2. 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). >> The “tragedy of the commons” and all that ( >> 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 and >> 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 >> >> >> >> 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 <paul.sh...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:29 PM >> *To:* bigheadden...@gmail.com >> *Cc:* <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >> *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 <bigheadden...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> With all due respect: >> >> >> >> 1. 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? >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. *“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://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 <lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org> *On Behalf Of *Paul >> Shorb >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:50 PM >> *To:* <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >> *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 < >> stephanieesm...@gmail.com> 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 <richardpane...@gmail.com> >> 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 Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> 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. >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> *Stephanie Smoot* >> >> >> >> 857 368-9175 work >> >> 781 941-6842 personal cell >> >> *617 595-5217 *work cell >> >> 126 Chestnut Circle >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> Lincoln, MA 01773 >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> 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 Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > 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 Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > 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 Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. 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.
