October 18, 2009
-
<慳電膽>
英文版本在這裏登了, 不再重複.
1. 我想說, 這個電燈公司 “派發慳電膽現金券”, 第一, 不能有效地鼓勵人由鎢絲燈泡轉用慳電膽 (不計那一舊水, 原本既經濟誘引已經十分強); 第二, 對於現行慳電膽用戶, 這 $100 純粹是獎金 (因為他們本身已用慳電膽); 第三, 計劃推行時不會計自算是 “轉用” – 對環保有利; 還是 “多加慳電膽: – 對環保有害. 我對這計劃能否鼓勵由鎢絲燈泡轉用慳電膽, 以及對環保功效很有懷疑.
2. 更重要的是, 兩電會係電費度收返個幾億現金券. 所以曾蔭權話 :
“慳電膽較同等照明效果的鎢絲燈泡耗電量少七成。為鼓勵市民以慳電膽取代鎢絲燈泡，兩家電力公司會向住宅用戶派發慳電膽現金券”或者我讀咁多年書, 最後都係多餘. 我真係唔知乜野叫 “派發”. 即係你去民政事務局d 社區中心避難, 佢派發毛毯食物, 但轉頭問你拎信用咭號碼過數.
呢條粉腸, 根本就係講緊我近排成日講既一句野
Comments (4)
Read both versions, just would like to add one point – which i probably will not raise in my own blog which is still being written (and only 10% as intellectual as your analysis).
PRESENT cost VS FUTURE savings…
We will need to discount the value of future savings. In this case, what is the discount rate in the mind of the average consumer (I think we will need to treat this as variable as the rate will be low among the ecologically minded and high among those who care more about their grocery bill)?
If the discount rate is really high (present savings much desired), then the voucher probably will be somewhat attractive. Would you agree on that?
@bigarnex -
Yes, discounting matters. But even taken into account the effect of discounting, the $100 voucher remains very small relatively to the monetary savings, that i still cast doubt on whether it matters anyway.
For example, if the $2,800 benefit is (1) cut by half (suppose the savings is overestimated by EMSD), and is (2) discounted over 10-year with a discount of 50% (both of which are unrealistically harsh), the present value is $280. i think compared with the $100 voucher, the impact in present value terms remains substantial that i doubt the voucher could have any significant, additional inducing impact.
For information, if you cut the gross benefit by half, discount 10-year with 10% discount rate, the present value is $1,720.
我送架車俾你, 你放低二十萬
我送層樓俾你, 你俾五百萬我
永遠 Emphasize 前句, 後面果句就用 Font size = 2…
I like the ‘“加錢送”‘ thing!!!