TimG Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) It did not read like that to me at all: page 12: "various approaches could reduce financial hurdles..."They try to spin it as if it is an access to money issue but I don't believe that to be the case. The vast majority of businesses and people have access to capital if they wish it. The issue is the ROI must be larger than the cost of capital (i.e. bank interest). Only a small subset of people would have access to capital without debt and this means doing nothing can often have a better ROI than doing something. The only way to close this gap is to offer subsidies which are simply a way to confiscate capital from people and force them to spend it on investments which the government decides are better. This causes economic harm. people and businesses are unaware of potential conservation investmentsAdd people with product to sell have an incentive to educate people on these investments. There is no need for government intervention if there is a real economic return. there is a choice between conservation investment and no investment, where an extra incentive would increase economic activity and help the economyAll available capital is allocated. Some people choose to keep part of the capital in low risk investments because to hedge against future cash flow problems. Encouraging people to take more risk can be good for the economy but there are likely many ways to take risks which have a higher ROI than marginal energy efficiency measures. Edited January 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.