>I'm sorry but you jumped into the middle of a conversation and completely changed the subject so you could argue something that's been explicitly removed from the discussion.
First, the discussion is precisly what the "people jumping in" contribute. This is not some closed circle of pre-determined friends, it's a public forum. Anybody can jump in. Note how the subthread wasn't even about the original post (Project Sunroof) in the first place, it had been diverted in discussing costs.
Second, I don't see how saying essentially monetary costs are inferior to environmental costs is "changing the subject" much less "completely". It's still about costs in general, and it's still about monetary costs in particular (it's about whether the extra monetary costs are worth the environmental impact, and it's also about the hidden indirect monetary costs from environmental damage).
>You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation.
In your contrived example, what Lennon did to his wife has no relation to impact of Beatles on the music recording technology.
Whereas environmental costs are still costs (and even have a dollar value, even if implicit). Plus, they are still something to think about when deciding if something is "too expensive" or not.
So nothing like what you suggest at all.
Do you only check the price to determine "expensiveness"? Not build quality, materials, features, and among them, social issues, like environmental impact and working conditions?
From an economic standpoint, none of those things can be described by the word "cheaper".
"the claims that these systems are "cheaper" prey on economic ignorance."
That's the original assertion. Now, if alternative power really was cheaper than coal or oil, we would already have it because businesses would be stupid not to flock to the cheaper option. Instead it's fringe enough that people hold serious debates about whether or not it's a good idea to invest in it. Everyone would drive a Prius if it was cheaper. Everyone would have solar on their roof. But hardly anyone does, because it's not cheaper.
You want to talk about externalities, let's do that: from an economic standpoint, they don't matter. Because the people who are paying for the power plant aren't paying for the pollution. Until the day we hold them accountable and make them pay for the cleanup, traditional power sources will always be cheaper.
So there's your discussion on environmental costs when you're talking economics of power sources. It doesn't even come into play. I drive a gas powered car because a gas powered car is cheaper. If I had an electric car, the power would come from coal, because coal is cheaper. The ship that transports the coal to my local plant is powered by diesel, because diesel is cheaper. And no where along the way is anyone forcing anyone to pay for the cleanup of their mess.
Now you want to talk morals? Yes we all should be embarrassed and we should be fined high and low for what we're doing to our environment. Shame on all of us. You know how often I drive my car when I could have walked? What the hell is wrong with me? I hate myself sometimes. But no one is making me pay for the damage I'm doing. Force me to pay for being lazy! Force the price of gas up, the price of coal! Force solar and wind to be major forces in power generation! But until that day happens, environmental costs are irrelevant when discussing the microeconomics of solar versus traditional power. Traditional power wins every time when you're talking real, direct dollars.
First, the discussion is precisly what the "people jumping in" contribute. This is not some closed circle of pre-determined friends, it's a public forum. Anybody can jump in. Note how the subthread wasn't even about the original post (Project Sunroof) in the first place, it had been diverted in discussing costs.
Second, I don't see how saying essentially monetary costs are inferior to environmental costs is "changing the subject" much less "completely". It's still about costs in general, and it's still about monetary costs in particular (it's about whether the extra monetary costs are worth the environmental impact, and it's also about the hidden indirect monetary costs from environmental damage).
>You walked into a conversation about the impact The Beatles had on music recording technology and said "yeah but John Lennon was horrible to his wife". True, and it's an important point to make. Just not in this conversation.
In your contrived example, what Lennon did to his wife has no relation to impact of Beatles on the music recording technology.
Whereas environmental costs are still costs (and even have a dollar value, even if implicit). Plus, they are still something to think about when deciding if something is "too expensive" or not.
So nothing like what you suggest at all.
Do you only check the price to determine "expensiveness"? Not build quality, materials, features, and among them, social issues, like environmental impact and working conditions?