Nicely said, but don't tell the voters!
@Ted
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which I am beginning to expect from you and others, as I am a relatively new writer here!
Your hot word "tax" is something I'm OK with saying out loud, but that's not exactly the result if we have a cap-and-trade carbon market. The product is not taxed. Emissions of CO2, in such a system, do involve a charge or tax based on a proportional, market-based representation of the externalities involved. What something costs to the environment may be fundamentally unknowable, but we know CO2 should be reduced, and policies that put this incentive into the market.
The point about loss of a back-up is important, and of course residential and commercial electric supplies need some excess capacity—something like liquidity in a financial market. It seems the big difference (an obvious one!) between a land-based power grid and a system of generators on a massive and complex ship is that the national or regional power grid is a bigger pool. Thus if the main power plant for Whatville goes out, it can pull from Whereville and Whoton. If the main power plant on a ship goes out or loses capacity, you absolutely must fire up the backup systems.
So that elasticity is the key. If something goes wrong, or if the system really actually needs more power, then a power grid needs ways to raise production, but this can be spread out over great distances, where an aggregate deficit is unlikely.
My question is: Are civilian grids run with less concern for failure or shortcomings, or more, when compared with military ships? A military really doesn't want a ship to go out of service, as this endangers missions and puts many lives at risk. But when we see the economic damage and safety problems coming from grid failures, the penalties, even on just a money level, seem huge.
Of course, it would shock no taxpayer if something working in the private sector was more efficient than a government bureaucracy or multi-hedged military plan. I've just never thought of that in environmental terms before.
I think Ted and Craig above are having exactly the conversation we need. I realize I didn't make it super clear in the post that the utilities only shut things off for a few minutes at a time and on rotation. The efficiency gains we get collectively, and as Craig notes, the lower power bills, are our reward for a brief period of slightly diminished comfort.
Also Craig's point about the override is important. I'm not sure the details of all the systems out there, but this should suggest that choice is maintained.
Seems like if the government got more involved, they could require this sort of metering in new construction or remodels. Or they could use rebate incentives to nudge people along. But the market might be able to eventually handle this one on its own...
Part of the story here in terms of why black matter hasn't been as big a focus is that it falls out of the sky after a period of time, whereas CO2 must be metabolized or otherwise dealt with—otherwise it's there forever.
@Nicolas - I think labeling is a very important step, especially when combined with incentives for purchasing more efficient (and efficiently-produced) goods. Of course, one dream here would be to account for carbon costs and figure them into prices, which is one goal of cap and trade. The international accounting these scholars are working on would be a necessary step.
In Colorado, they also print The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Financial Times is available in Denver metro for daily delivery. Glenwood Springs, which is in Garfield County, is included at least in the NYT delivery zone. All of the other reasonable arguments aside, why not let inmates have a more interesting newspaper?
Go Boulder. But Boston-Cambridge seems pretty alive with this stuff.