Cheaper is Better

Sometimes members of the environmental community have developed a illogical dislike of anything that reduces costs.  The source is understandable, historically many cost cutting measures have done harm to the environment.  That history doesn't make the bias any more valid.  In fact I'd wager that for every 1 cost cutting measure that harmed the environment, there have been 10 that lessened the impact of an activity.

Despite the title, I'm not really suggesting cheaper is always better.  I am pointing out that if your evaluating two choices from a distance, and the only information you have available is price, you're better off betting on cheap, not expensive.

Price is unfortunately a very superficial metric, so I do encourage a deeper examination when possible.  The idea of many pieces of legislation is to add to prices the unmetered costs like CO2, sulphur, etc.  In the meantime, I'm surprised we haven't begun to publish "environmental prices".

Why not?  Why should products be given 3 stars or 5 stars?  How does a consumer use this information?  I think environmental ratings would be more effective if stated in adjusted costs.  Initially I expect there would be a fair bit of disagreement over how many dollars a ton of CO2 costs, but it can't be harder for the community to decide then it is for legislators.

Information presented in this fashion has other benefits as well.  It would make the process of legislation easier, since there would already be community backed data to base price targets upon.  It would make the different databases of information more compatible.  I'd be able to compare Consumer Reports environmental rating with Energy Star's rating, at least in a ballpark fashion.  It would also be a useful tool in general debate

What made me think of this?  Three things.  One was writing about Airline efficiencies.  My best guess before research was that the bargain airlines, such as jetBlue, ATA and Southwest.  The guess wasn't bad as only jetBlue was #1, and ATA #2 (in 2003).  Southwest wasn't very good showing that price is only skin deep, but 2 for 3 is a lot better than I would have done by betting on the most expensive airlines.

The second is a fad that has begun in the anti-environmental community.  Every energy conserving proposal is immediately met with a claim, often without any supporting data, that the energy conservation is less than the energy cost to produce.  I've seen such claims for solar, wind, ethanol, bio-diesel, CFLs and hybrids so far.  Of these, ethanol is the only I've seen data for that indicates the balance is even close (The majority of studies, and the most recent indicate even corn ethanol have positive energy balances though).  I've seen data on solar which clearly indicates a very significant energy payback.

But fancy studies aren't always necessary.  Here's a very simple rule that is almost unbreakable.  If on one side you have $50 in electricity costs, and on the other side you have less than $50 (including subsidized costs) in general costs, you have a positive energy balance.  The claim that CFLs have a negative energy balance is thus completely ridiculous.  CFLs aren't subsidized, and a 60 watt bulb will save $30 in electricity in a 6cent per kwh market, yet cost only $3-$8.  If a manufacture is putting $30 of electricity into a product they sell for $3, I plan to short that stock.

The third is this gristmill article on local food, and some of the comments.  It's clear people are in need of more clarity in their decision making process.  I'm sure disagreements over priority will remain but I'd rather be debating CO2 to H20 cost ratios than thousands of minute tradeoffs.