New York City has been losing residents for some time. This is not a supply and demand thing as much as easy money policy chasing hard assets. I’ll have to dig it up the numbers, but Manhattan many condos are vacant, and have been bought by foreign money who don’t live in nyc or investors looking to park assets.
It's a complex problem but the value of NYC real estate for foreign investors assumes scarcity of NYC real estate.
Foreign money or no, if you have a very desirable city with a growing job market and stagnant construction, prices will appreciate. I would challenge you to find a single counterexample
Foreign money doesn't help prices but it's more a symptom of our problems than a cause.
Also, NYC population is not declining. I wish. There have been some stagnant years but nowhere near enough to compensate for 50 years of underbuilding.
Not in the us it doesn’t. The two cap and trade programs in the us do little to stop someone at the individual level from needlessly emitting - there is no economic signal to stop. Even some large emitters aren’t subject to any economic signals in rggi, and California has an odd habit of handing out allowances. In a more perfect world, you would be correct.
The question is why isn’t illegal to externalize on my and my kids life by burning gas as if it had no consequence beside being an asinine financial move.
In reality, cars are safer now then they have ever been. Allowing people to buy pickup trucks isn’t some dastardly move made out of excess and negligence. Anyone who needs a pickup truck has there own reasons, and as long as the vehicle has passed the legally required safety measures, why not just let people have the freedom to do what they want?
IMO vehicles of a certain size should have to follow specific rules (in densely populated areas). I live where is snows; and when it does, there are lots of 2-way streets that are large enough for 2 reasonably sized vehicles, but not if one of them is a huge truck / suburban. Last night I had to back out of a road because some lady in an Escalade was driving down the center and refused to squeeze right to allow traffic to flow as intended. It also bothers me that you cannot see over these automobiles on the highway. Many times I've been traveling in the left lane on the highway with a big truck in front of me (that's going slow, but I assume it's because of the person in front of them). I move left even more to try and peek around them to discover that there is no one in front of them, they're just oblivious / refusing to yield. If you want to drive something huge, that's okay with me, but keep it in the right lane and off of small streets like all the shipping trucks.
I don't see what the label has to do with it. Isn't it the total amount that matters? If the externalities of a gallon of gas are $X, and the total taxes are > $X, then the purchaser is paying for them. How do you know one or more of the taxes doesn't identify as a carbon tax?
I guess you could assume that the current taxes are precisely applied to externalities other than CO2, but given the large differences in taxation due to jurisdiction, I don't see how they could broadly match up. And requirements for them to do so surely aren't strict or universal.
Because the actual harm done from emitting via gasoline usage is not dealt with under the current tax regime. I’d argue that any tax that exists does not encapsulate the cost of removing those emissions from the atmosphere. Considering it costs somewhere between 90 and 400/ ton (possibly more) to remove co2 from the atmosphere, I don’t see how the current tax regimes are quite enough but more importantly the economic harm that’s being done is not being addressed with those tax dollars.
In theory, you could tax gasoline to the level of true removal cost, but unless a market exists to actually remove the carbon it’s moot since the mechanism to clear the damage can’t exist without a functional market on carbon.
Thus, when you burn gasoline you are externalizing. As a result I cannot understand the desire to needlessly do this just so you can drive a superduty to your office job.
Exactly. It’s a about a capacity for risk. Rich kids have plenty of capacity since they’re essentially backstopped. A poor kid has one shot, and if it doesn’t start paying out quick, that kid starves.
I find this type of logic to be inconsistent with the innovative culture of tech, and a fair bit hypocritical. On one hand, we have a new, fairly unprecedented technology (at least unprecedented on the scale on which it’s used) yet we are relying on tort law that predates the contemplation of anything of this magnitude. Why?
It was reasonable in 1990 that the mechanism that you suggest here would be highly effective in most cases. We are in uncharted waters now and unlike the titanic, I think we should proceed with caution.
You would need utility scale storage to flatten the load curve. The peaks and super peaks are not going away until there is a viable storage mechanism with enough capacity. We are talking significant changes in demand between even the early afternoon and the super peak in almost all load areas (pjm California ercot). The other alternative is a massive buildout or behind the meter solar which theoretically could solve this issue.
What the above poster is suggesting is adjusting demand dynamically based on price. That requires consumers to throttle their own usage (probably using automated systems that know the real-time price of electricity). You can run the dishwasher or charge your car or cool your home when electricity is cheap.
I’m not sure there is enough play in demand elasticity to affect significant change relative to the amount of load difference you see. Furthermore the peaks are highly weather sensitive. Would love to be proven wrong though.
There's not much play in demand at the moment, but there could be if more systems were aware of the price of electricity. A/C can be turned off, cars can stop charging, dishes can wait, etc.
Variation in renewable energy generation can be reduced by averaging over larger geographic areas. Wind speeds and cloud cover vary much more on local scales than on continent-wide scales.
A combination of demand adjustment and linking of power generation over large geographic areas can reduce the need for energy storage.
I’m guessing here, but I think the number seems high because shale wells have short lifespans. The declines are much higher than conventional wells, and so there are a great many of them to maintain production as the wells decline. There are large a number of DUCs, or drilled but uncompleted wells. They maintain these so that when one well runs dry, another can be brought online to maintain production targets. Also it’s more economic to drill as many wells as you can as quickly as possible even if it exceeds targets because there are economies of scale when it comes to moving and leasing rigs that drill the wells.
The vast majority of wells are old vertical wells, not shale wells. For example, in the Permian basin there are around 18,000 horizontal shale wells but over 300,000 vertical conventional wells.
Great question. For the Williston Basin, the numbers are 31,905 horizontals vs. 28,330 verticals. It definitely speaks to the difference in when these basins were developed.
This is probably true but not an excuse for the perverted behavior and incentives that result. If 90% of the students at Harvard aren’t in the top 10% but feel entitled to be and thus cheating becomes a more attractive solution than taking the medicine of reality - clearly the penalties for cheating aren’t quite high enough.
Penalties don't work when only a few cheats are found.
In this case, the cheat was obvious, but how do you detection enrollment cheats or totally bought research projects? It's not even funny how little you can do here.
Even plain and obvious plagiarism is being missed.
