Comments on: Pushing a String

By: Valuethinker

Valuethinker — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:24:27 +0000

ps on windmill manufacturers, the world is completely tapped out, there is an up to 3 year waiting list for new turbines.
You could make the jibe about wind farm developers, but since wind is the only practical and cost effective alternative to carbon emitting power stations at the moment, they would happen to be right.
Ideally we should not subsidise wind generated electricity, but tax carbon emission heavily (or trade permits). Until that time (and remembering the world still subsidises nuclear and fossil fuel production to the tune of at least $300bn pa) we have to make do with subsidies.

By: Valuethinker

Valuethinker — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:02:58 +0000

On global warming there is something of a replay of the CAFE debate.
Most sensible people thought it would be better to raise gasoline taxes than mandate fuel economy. John Anderson campaigned for President on a 50 cent a gallon gas tax platform, in 1980.
But political reality is the latter is impossible. CAFE was a compromise which nonetheless did achieve significant results.
Similarly for appliance Energy efficiency standards, the individual buyer may not choose energy efficiency, or not be aware of it (consider the tenant of an apartment where the landlord buys appliances for cheapness, not energy efficiency). Plenty of evidence even homeowners pay little attention to energy efficiency. New air conditioners are 40% more energy efficient than pre 2005 air conditioners– the market didn’t mandate that, the President signed a law making it so.
So it’s up to the ‘supply side’ measures, economically inefficient though they may be, to fill the gap.
On Global Warming, I suspect the problem is so chronic we need *both*.
But producer groups, like wind power enthusiasts, can drive through environmentally beneficial changes which happen to be in their best interests. Demand groups, like the billions affected by global warming, tend to have too difuse a political voice.

By: Valuethinker

Valuethinker — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:56:41 +0000

perhaps another good analogy:
‘would we rate taking a driving course the same, for driving competency, as passing a driving test?’
I believe the military in particular is heavily competence-based in its testing, as opposed to credential based (at the senior officer level, the reverse may be true). You fired a rifle and hit a minimum score, or you are not a soldier.
At my business school (London Business School) you were required, to achieve the MBA, to pass a competency test regarding a second foreign language (English counted, so for 70% of the students who were not native English speakers, they effectively had a 2 year intensive course in Business English).
Conversely the whole concept of an MBA in general is credentialism. Which may be why MBA programmes increasingly offer ‘skills based’ courses that actually require you to demonstrate a competence at the end.

By: sd

sd — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:28:10 +0000

Gross over-simplification for the sake of argument:
Demand side strategies are always neccessary for optimal solution to social problems. They are sometimes, but not always, sufficient.

By: SamChevre

SamChevre — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:03:36 +0000

At my alma mater, the “water” requirement for graduation could be fulfilled in 2 ways.
Pass the swim test (which was unnecessarily hard–2 laps in each stroke, in each of back, breast, freestyle, and something else) OR take a swim class.

By: npm

npm — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:45:06 +0000

Re:”…the swimming required one to actually swim from here to there, and was not substitutable by a written exam in natation theory…” A classmate at Williams College (which did and, I believe, still does require one to pass a swimming test) wanted to take a course in drum-making at a neighboring institution. His request was rejected, but he was told that he was welcome to take a course in the theory of drum-making.