The Oil Drum

38 comments on Senate blocks debate of clean energy tax credits

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

FiniteQuantity on June 17, 2008 - 6:06pm

I wonder which would save the US more fossil fuel energy - stopping the 2 million immigrants we have each year, or continuing a credit that facilitates people putting up windmills and solar arrays in their backyards? In order for them to be equal in value I think the bill would have to encourage 2 million new people a year to produce enough energy from backyard renewables to equal 100% of the energy they consume each year. Or 4 million a year to get half. Or 8 million a year to produce a quarter of the energy they use from backyard renewables.

It reminds me of the article in which Tad Patzek suggested that talking about energy solutions without addressing population growth was like mopping the floors with the faucets still running. It also brings to mind Albert Bartlett's wonderful talk regarding mankinds' failure to understand the exponential function.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

whit on June 18, 2008 - 4:25pm

You need an analysis of cost effectiveness. What would it cost to stop all 2 million immigrants we have each year (accepting that figure)? It's not just an "equal value" question as you have it. It might turn out that stopping 2 million immigrants costs 100 billion dollars, while encouraging a reduction-in-demand of 0.66% nationally (the equivalent of 2 million people going off-grid) would cost 10 billion dollars.

Further, putting just 10 billion dollars towards tighter borders might be totally ineffective - as most border control measures have proved to be so far. So spending on energy efficiency might make sense even if coupled with relaxed immigration policies. Not saying that's so, just pointing out it's a more complex equation than you suggest.