[stetrain]

What would motivate the private sector to solve the problem?

What economic incentive does a specific company have to make decisions that may negatively impact its short term earnings to address a global issue that will manifest slowly over the course of a century?

What if the "economically sustainable" path to net zero by 2100 results in existential issues for large parts of the human population, food supply, etc? There is an economic cost to allowing the climate to continue on its current path and actually net zero doesn't necessarily reverse that change, it just prevents its continued acceleration. If the "economically sustainable" path results in the destruction of the economy, then it's no longer sustainable.

[prewett]

> What would motivate the private sector to solve the problem?

Money.

Cost of grid-solar is somewhere between 50% - 70% of coal and the trend is decreasing renewable cost. [1] If you are a utility, what is the next plant you are going to install? If you can get solar for a fraction of the cost of a coal plant, it's a pretty easy decision. Plus, you can probably keep the rates the same and pass on that savings to your shareholders.

Every time I visit family in Oklahoma I see more and more wind farms. Texas is has one of the highest level of renewable energy. These are states that have a knee-jerk opposition to "the liberal agenda", and yet Texas the largest producer of renewable energy (solar + wind handily beats California), and the most "anti-liberal" red states are generating the most renewable energy: Oklahoma (42%), Kansas (47%), Iowa (60%), S. Dakota (57%).

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

[2] https://www.fool.com/research/renewable-energy-by-state/ (switch to the second tab for percentages)

[titzer]

> Money.

Sure, but please also recognize that the only reason we've gotten to renewables being cheaper is through massive subsidies. Solar has gotten there from economies of scale and technological innovation, which has been driven by government R&D, grants, and also massive subsidies.

But also keep in mind that money as the sole motivator for the market is a sword that cuts both ways. If two competitors A and B are in the same market or are producing the same product, and company A uses any one of a number of environmental cheats, like fossil-fuels, then company A is going to out-compete B, make more profit, and eventually crowd out B.

The private sector will go for maximum profit and socialize the losses wherever it can. The role of the rest of society is to hold the line and not ruin the planet so that company A can make 5 extra cents a share.

[stetrain]

But would renewables be cheaper today without the "hamfisted government policy" referenced above?

Government policy that creates or increases the economic incentive to move in the "desired" direction is an effective tool.

[prewett]

I'm not saying anything one way or the other what we "should" do, just answering the question "what would make private parties adopt renewable energy". My answer ("money"), in fact, agrees with you: whether it is artificially cheaper or naturally cheaper doesn't matter.

However, I think renewables would be cheaper even without government subsidies. Texas had large wind farms over even 15 years ago. I don't have any information about subsidies on solar panels, but given that the cost trend is halving the price every <n years>, that's pretty powerful. I think you could remove the subsidy and solar panels would still be competitive, and even if not now, than in one more halving period.

[stetrain]

It’s also hard to detangle the effects of local subsidies vs those in say China which are also driving down costs of solar.

Really in context my question was “What would motivate the private sector in the absence of government intervention”. The comment I was replying to was clearly setting up a contrast between letting the “private sector” solve it instead of “hamfisted government policy.”

Really those two aren’t separate. The government even when it “overreaches” in the eyes of some rarely tackles large projects on its own. Most of what it does is regulate, tax, and inventive the private sector to attempt to achieve some desired outcome.