{"items": [{"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/109502185221418876252", "anchor": "gp-1341594631687", "service": "gp", "text": "It's not always even true that the \"virtuous\" product costs more! When I was at Carleton, one of the big priorities of environmental activist students was to move the college over to wind energy-- which has, to a large extent, happened. But since the college is in a windy place and has achieved this by building wind turbines, they expect it to actually save them money over the life of the turbines.\u00a0\n
\n
\nThe other priority was to change the food in the dining hall in various ways; I'm not sure to what extent that has happened, and I'm quite sure it cost money.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1341594631}, {"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/109502185221418876252", "anchor": "gp-1341595171694", "service": "gp", "text": "Also, I think with most institutions it's pretty clear where money saved by buying the cheapest possible products will go. Colleges tend to be able to use any surplus for financial aid, or if it's large enough, to prevent them raising tuition (or I suppose to actually lower it), and I think feel pretty obligated to do so.\u00a0\n
\n
\nCorporations clearly have some ability to give to charity, but are legally obligated to their stockholders to maximize profits, so the arguments that will get them to give to charity are that it's good for their brand or for employee retention, not that they happen to have extra money sitting around. There is a sense in which they are formally required to listen only to arguments about charity that are about being \"heartwarming\", not about being efficient.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1341595171}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1341606242207", "service": "gp", "text": "@Allison\n\u00a0In cases where it's cheaper they should clearly do it, and in cases where it is only very slightly more expensive it could still be worth it. \u00a0But putting up wind turbines is not only a big investment, it's not something the college has much experience with. \u00a0It also surprises me that the college is able to generate wind power more cheaply than a wind farm. \u00a0(When they say \"it's cheaper\" did they include the salaries+benefits of the employees that would be managing it? \u00a0That they couldn't use the land for other things? That it ties up the money and so is competing with other potential investments?)", "timestamp": 1341606242}, {"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/109502185221418876252", "anchor": "gp-1341611079560", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not sure they included the cost of other potential investments. I am sure they included the cost of the land use, as I believe it is rented land. I believe they've also included labor costs etc. in their calculations.\n
\n
\nI think it's cheaper mainly because there's no cut going to the power company; what the power company pays the wind farm and what the college would pay to buy wind power over the grid are not the same. Evidently enough not the same that it's a better deal for the college to build the turbine: one could be justified as an educational experience, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure the second was financially motivated.", "timestamp": 1341611079}]}