NewEnergyNews: THE CASE FOR A CARBON TAX

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW OIL MARKETS ARE MANIPULATED
  • QUICK NEWS, May 14: HUGE BUFFETT WIND BUY IN IOWA; THE VALUE OF ARIZONA’S SUN; MINNESOTA LOVES WIND
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH STORAGE
  • QUICK NEWS, May 13: HOW BIG OIL USES REPUBLICANS; WIND SAVES MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS – STUDY; BRIGHTSOURCE EXEC TALKS SOLAR TOWER TECH & BIZ
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • Weekend Video: Senator Blasts Senator For Using Religion To Deny Climate Change
  • Weekend Video: The Remarkable Wind In Scotland
  • Weekend Video: The Sci Show Does Solar
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    From the sparring at the first presidential debate, it's pretty sure that energy has become a divisive as well as a competitive issue. Both President Obama and Governor Romney want to be the triumphal producer of energy.

    However Romney likes to smear climate change concerns and clean energy investments, as if all of them go like Solyndra, where a half a billion in loan guarantees went down with the company, as he crowed that 50 percent of clean energy investments supported by the stimulus bill had gone belly up. This was dubbed the "lie of the night" by Michael Grunwald, author of a book about the stimulus bill, citing that maybe one percent of government backed clean energy ventures failed.

    Try getting that rate of safety in your investing. According to a new poll by Hart for the solar industry, voters seem to know that loan guarantees are a steadfast service of government and highly safe, as the Solyndra debacle was deemed unimportant by respondents. Ninety-two percent of registered voters found it important that solar be more widespread, with 70 percent believing that the federal government should be doing more to promote it with incentives (with 71 percent of swing voters feeling this way).

    And, sigh, with tens of thousands of wind power jobs on the chopping block already, Mitt Romney opposes the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. This, even as red states need it renewed, putting him in the dog house with GOP politicians such as Senator Chuck Grassely of Iowa whose state produces 20 percent of its power from wind, and Governor Brownback of Kansas who has made vigorous pleas for the extension of the credit, due to expire this at the end of this year.

    Didn't Romney get the memo? Republican governors are making hay with clean energy such as Haley Barbour and Chris Christie. To Mississippi, Barbour brought four solar sector firms to Mississippi along with two in biofuels plus a clean tech car venture with China. Christie made New Jersey a leading solar market in the nation, this year contending with California for first place.

    But Romney and other high priests of the GOP act as though the only real energy is the type that can be burned, and somehow, Obama has nibbled at this hemlock by constantly touting his success with fracking and his openness to the XL pipeline.

    A truly strange specter is that pipeline; it lets our heartland be used as a byway for tar sands products (which sink rather than float when spilled), so they can go straight to international markets. We get the downsides and none of the upsides -- even as the pipeline could increase gasoline prices in the Midwest, which would lose its existing access to tar sands products.

    One plausible upside of the pipeline being routed through the United States (where it might be built quickly, as would not happen in the alternative route through western Canada) is that it could strengthen the hand of President Obama in his suite of sanctions against Iran, including a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Our recent frack-mania allows our nation to resume oil production levels not seen for 15 years and thus strengthens our hand. Three weeks ago Iran admitted having problems selling oil due to U.S. and European sanctions; now the nation's currency is in free fall.

    One certainly hopes that tar sands will thrive mightily as a "psy-ops" against Iran and not as a chemical weapon against our climate, as Dr. James Hansen has sternly warned.

    Never bounded by his prior convictions about the climate, Romney crows that he would authorize the pipeline on day one and build it himself if need be (as if he in his wingtips could "John Wayne" his way around an oil field). It's all such a sham he-man rodeo.

    And no one mentioned the climate -- in spite of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures demanding the topic. Neither candidate pushed clean energy as the vote winner that poll after poll have shown it to be. Authors for DBL Investors in their study of green energy exclaim, "We all need to understand that green jobs are not the idle dreaming of a small group of partisan activists and insiders, but a source of livelihood for millions, literally in all parts of the country." The light shines in the darkness but the darkness of our politics has not understood it.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Friday, March 21, 2008

    THE CASE FOR A CARBON TAX

    Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo argues that global climate change presents an urgent need for mitigation requiring ethical choices about who will pay and when. He convincingly shows that only universal action will be effective and asserts that a carbon tax, left to each nation to administer in its own way, is the easiest and fairest way to reach that end and thinks other approaches too complicated: “If you're worried about climate change but don't like carbon taxes, think about the messy or even impossible alternatives!”

    President Zedillo advocates a tax that is flexibly administered: “…each country could then decide what to do with the tax revenue. Some might make their carbon tax revenue-neutral by reducing other taxes. The regime would allow countries (or associations of countries such as the EU) to comply with the internationally agreed-upon carbon price by means of their own national cap-and-trade systems. It would also let poor countries move toward the agreed trajectory of carbon prices more slowly than rich countries…”

    President Zedillo makes good sense except for the universally acknowledged problem of an emissions tax: Electorates don’t like taxes and they don’t like politicians who advocate taxes.

    President Zedillo may also be underestimating the messiness of a tax and overestimating the messiness of a cap-and-trade system.

    The subject is thoroughly worked at
    The Carbon Tax Center

    Putting a price on emissions takes two subsidies away from fossil fuels. (slide from the Carbon Tax Center - click to enlarge)

    Carbon Prices, Not Quotas
    Ernesto Zedillo, March 24, 2008 (Forbes)

    WHO
    Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico/director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

    President Zedillo's proposal is more eloquent and less specific than this one from The Carbon Tax Center. (click to enlarge)

    WHAT
    Zedillo makes the case for universal action to mitigate climate change and argues that a tax is preferable to a cap-and-trade system.

    WHEN
    - Zedillo argues that the world community must act now to prevent harm to future generations but climate change presents a particularly difficult matter to get universal action on because the harm and potential benefits are in the far future.
    - Other occasions of unified world action were in times of immediate danger and short term resolution: The formation of the UN after WWII; The General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) after the protectionism of the 1930s; The IMF after international monetary chaos; Actions against diseases and pandemics.

    A concrete proposal from The Carbn Tax Center. (click to enlarge)

    WHERE
    Zedillo acknowledges that nations do not like to forego sovereignty but there is a need for universal action on this matter.

    WHY
    - Zedillo asserts that there is scientific consensus on climate change and a need for universal action to mitigate it.
    - There are complicated ethics involved, weighing the needs of the future against the present and the rich against the poor.
    - Only an absolutely universal price on emissions will work. If any nations are allowed to opt out, it would cause “leakage” of emissions-intensive activity and likely result in trade wars.
    - Complicated systems are likely to fail.
    - Systems with costs too low to incentivize the development of New Energy are likely to fail.

    A tax is more complicated, and cap-and-trade more workable, than The Carbon Tax Center makes it seem but it's an important debate. (click to enlarge)

    QUOTES
    - Zedillo: “The reality is that a sacrifice of some sort will have to be incurred by the present generation for the sake of people who will exist many years from now, in richer societies than ours and, most probably, in countries not our own.”
    - Zedillo: “Frankly, a Kyoto-type framework--one with global quantitative emissions targets allocated among countries--that meets [all the necessary] conditions is not feasible…”

    2 Comments:

    At 3:22 PM, Blogger Richard Douthwaite said...

    The point that voters don't like taxes is well made. They particularly don't like taxes which will have to be increased each year to get emissions down, eventually, to close to zero. In Ireland, it has been estimated that a carbon tax would have to be somewhere between €200 and €400 per tonne of CO2 to bring about a 3% annual emissions reduction, the rate being required of Ireland by the European Commission.

    A much more politically feasible solution is a version of Cap and Trade called Cap and Share in which each person receives an equal share of the revenue received from selling carbon emissions permits to fossil fuel producers. Peter Barnes' Sky Trust has proposed this in the US and there is a very good chance that the Irish government will announce that it is to use Cap and Share to reduce the country's road transport emissions in its budget in December this year. If Cap and Share proves itself, it is then likely to be extended to all other Irish greenhouse emissions apart from those already controlled by the EU's Emissions Trading System.
    See www.capandshare.org

     
    At 9:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    NewEnergyNews is honored to have a comment on this post from world-renowned economist Richard Douthwaite. He re-emphasizes Peter Barnes' Cap-and-Share alternative to cap-and-trade, an idea proposed to NewEnergyNews last week (see the post below) by Hazel Henderson.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home