Thursday, July 26, 2007

Irrational Incandescence

This graph looks at the costs of various ways of reducing CO2 emissions.

Many actually cost less than $0 to implement. If they would actually save people money, why aren't they being implemented?

Economists trying to explain this apparent irrationality suggest that the savings are too small and the effort involved in change too large. People find their electricity bills too boring to think about; within companies, those responsible for keeping bills down may not have the authority to spend the necessary capital. Another explanation is the agency problem: that the developer who would have to pay higher capital costs up front will not be forking out for the electricity bills. Besides, people buy houses not because they have good insulation but because they have pretty views.
So what can be done about this?
Energy-efficiency standards, such as building regulations, are another option. Economists generally prefer to avoid rules that specify what companies can produce and how, because they require governments, rather than markets, to allocate resources, and markets tend to do a better job. But if, as in this case, a public as well as a private good is involved, and the market does not seem to be doing its job properly, there is an argument for governments giving it a nudge.
via The Economist

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.