In a first, Iceland power plant turns carbon emissions to stone
Phys.org, 9 June 2016, no author given
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-climate-mitigation-co2.html
This is a report of ground-breaking – literally! – research recently published in the journal Science, claiming that pressurized CO2 pumped into basalt formations underground is rapidly absorbed, transforming the basalt into carbonate minerals that permanently lock the carbon into place. If true, this finding would substantially change the picture regarding “carbon capture and sequestration” (CCS), the storage of carbon dioxide emissions underground to prevent climate change. CCS is believed by many (such as the IPCC, in their latest report) to be crucial if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. This advance would allay fears that CO2 sequestered underground might leak back out into the atmosphere over time, since the CO2 would be tightly locked into permanent mineral structures. However, this technology requires large amounts of water to be pumped down as well – 25 tons of water per ton CO2, although seawater can be used. It is also possible that the carbonate minerals might get munched by bacteria that would release methane, perhaps completely reversing the benefits of CCS (or worse).
My take: This has the potential to be revolutionary, but it is important to take these kinds of early scientific results with a big grain of salt; a great deal more research is needed. Nevertheless, it is big news. It’s hard to see a path toward sustainability that does not involve CCS, since we rely so heavily on fossil fuels. It will be difficult to shift off of them completely; even if we manage to reach, say, 80% renewable energy (a very aggressive goal, for technical reasons such as intermittency), the remaining 20% use of fossil fuels would continue to drive atmospheric CO2 ever upward unless we master CCS. Indeed, the recent Paris Accord negotiations essentially assumed that some form of CCS would be used to offset a large fraction of future emissions. The problems with this new technology remain large, however. We presently emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year; this technology would thus require burying 1 trillion tons of water, which is 1000 cubic kilometers of water. Which is a lot of water, although it is only 0.000074% of the total volume of the ocean, if I have done my math right. The article also mentions the issue of cost, but not prominently enough, I think. Cost is the big problem that has plagued CCS for decades, because it takes a lot of energy to separate, compress, and inject waste CO2 underground. It is not clear that the new method improves on that, and so the cost of CCS may remain prohibitive even with this advance – unless, that is, some form of carbon taxation shifts the cost-benefit analysis by increasing the cost to companies of simply releasing waste CO2 into the atmosphere. But the cost of CCS may be even higher than the “social cost of carbon”, and so even with this technology a carbon tax might have to be set “too high” – higher than the actual damage done by CO2 – before CCS would start to make economic sense. So, in short: be excited, but remain calm.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Why Isn't Anyone Lobbying For Climate Change?
Why Isn't Anyone Lobbying For Climate Change?
Forbes, 7 June 2016, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#741962d569d3
This is an interesting piece by a sitting Senator, speaking frankly about how lobbying works inside the halls of Congress. The question he asks is simple: why don’t companies lobby for action on climate change? Even companies with a stated progressive attitude on climate change, such as Apple, Google, and Coca-Cola, don’t lobby on the issue at all; likewise with companies that directly lose money due to climate change, such as the logging industry (which has lost huge swathes of timber stands to beetle damage and forest fires) and the insurance industry (which pays out big bucks with every hurricane and flood). So, why? Sen. Whitehouse gives two reasons. First, lobbying organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have “all been coopted by fossil fuel interests” and fail to represent the companies that pay them, when it comes to lobbying on climate change. Indeed, Whitehouse calls the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is particularly egregious here, the “U.S. Chamber of Carbon”. Second, corporations are afraid of retribution; the Republican Party is, he says, so “intertwined” with fossil fuels that companies fear their wrath were they to act politically on climate change. Whitehouse ends on an upbeat note, citing the recent gathering of many American companies in support of a strong climate deal in the Paris Accords (as covered by another article I recently summarized); he says this group may be “too big to punish” and may thus herald a sea change.
My take: My impression is that Senator Whitehouse is being reasonably honest and direct here. I don’t agree with the way that he singles out the Republicans as being the crux of the problem; we have seen precious little real effort from the Democrats on climate change, too, although they are more willing to at least talk a good game. But overall I think what he says is true; lobbying organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce have been captured by the fossil fuel industry, and corporations feel insufficient political cover (from both parties, I would say) to make much noise about climate change. I would also note that political cover comes, ultimately, from the people; if corporations that speak out about climate change are praised and rewarded, instead of boycotted and slimed, we will see them become much more forthright. What I find sad is that Sen. Whitehouse, like almost all politicians, seems to recognize no personal complicity whatsoever in all this, even as he describes how he spent a whole week in meetings with lobbying groups that he himself knows have been “coopted by fossil fuel interests”. He says “the good guys in the corporate sector have to start showing up”. Hmm. Maybe the good guys in the political sector need to start showing up, too.
Forbes, 7 June 2016, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#741962d569d3
This is an interesting piece by a sitting Senator, speaking frankly about how lobbying works inside the halls of Congress. The question he asks is simple: why don’t companies lobby for action on climate change? Even companies with a stated progressive attitude on climate change, such as Apple, Google, and Coca-Cola, don’t lobby on the issue at all; likewise with companies that directly lose money due to climate change, such as the logging industry (which has lost huge swathes of timber stands to beetle damage and forest fires) and the insurance industry (which pays out big bucks with every hurricane and flood). So, why? Sen. Whitehouse gives two reasons. First, lobbying organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have “all been coopted by fossil fuel interests” and fail to represent the companies that pay them, when it comes to lobbying on climate change. Indeed, Whitehouse calls the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is particularly egregious here, the “U.S. Chamber of Carbon”. Second, corporations are afraid of retribution; the Republican Party is, he says, so “intertwined” with fossil fuels that companies fear their wrath were they to act politically on climate change. Whitehouse ends on an upbeat note, citing the recent gathering of many American companies in support of a strong climate deal in the Paris Accords (as covered by another article I recently summarized); he says this group may be “too big to punish” and may thus herald a sea change.
My take: My impression is that Senator Whitehouse is being reasonably honest and direct here. I don’t agree with the way that he singles out the Republicans as being the crux of the problem; we have seen precious little real effort from the Democrats on climate change, too, although they are more willing to at least talk a good game. But overall I think what he says is true; lobbying organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce have been captured by the fossil fuel industry, and corporations feel insufficient political cover (from both parties, I would say) to make much noise about climate change. I would also note that political cover comes, ultimately, from the people; if corporations that speak out about climate change are praised and rewarded, instead of boycotted and slimed, we will see them become much more forthright. What I find sad is that Sen. Whitehouse, like almost all politicians, seems to recognize no personal complicity whatsoever in all this, even as he describes how he spent a whole week in meetings with lobbying groups that he himself knows have been “coopted by fossil fuel interests”. He says “the good guys in the corporate sector have to start showing up”. Hmm. Maybe the good guys in the political sector need to start showing up, too.
EPA Official Covered up Methane Leakage Problems across US Natural Gas Industry
EPA Official Covered up Methane Leakage Problems across US Natural Gas Industry
NC WARN, 8 June 2016, no author stated
http://www.ncwarn.org/2016/06/whistleblower-epa-official-covered-up-methane-leakage-problems/
This is a press release from non-profit climate/energy action group NC WARN, announcing that they have filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this complaint, they allege “scientific fraud” and “possibly criminal misconduct” against Dr. David Allen, past head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and a faculty member of the University of Texas at Austin, for a claimed “three-year effort to cover up underreporting” of methane emissions by the EPA.
My take: I am quite skeptical of this. First let me say that (1) I think methane leaks are a big problem for climate change, (2) I agree – as does everyone following this, including the EPA themselves – that the EPA has historically underreported methane leakage, and (3) this underreporting has doubtless given some degree of aid and comfort to the fracking industry. But this press release does not convincingly substantiate the allegations of scientific fraud and criminal misconduct against Dr. Allen, and it reeks of bias. A much more balanced presentation of both sides of the story can be found in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/09/this-heated-fight-over-methane-emissions-is-almost-as-hot-as-the-gas/). It may be that fraud and/or misconduct occurred; but that will only become clear after an actual investigation is done, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions. I would trust organizations like NC WARN much more if they didn’t engage in this sort of demagoguery. For example, NC WARN states prominently that Dr. Allen "has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years”, while noting much less prominently and clearly that the studies in question by Dr. Allen were primarily funded, and published, by the Environmental Defense Fund – a rather less damning fact, no? This reminds me of the deceitful hounding of climate scientists by climate change denialists; such tactics ought to have no place in rational debate.
NC WARN, 8 June 2016, no author stated
http://www.ncwarn.org/2016/06/whistleblower-epa-official-covered-up-methane-leakage-problems/
This is a press release from non-profit climate/energy action group NC WARN, announcing that they have filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this complaint, they allege “scientific fraud” and “possibly criminal misconduct” against Dr. David Allen, past head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and a faculty member of the University of Texas at Austin, for a claimed “three-year effort to cover up underreporting” of methane emissions by the EPA.
My take: I am quite skeptical of this. First let me say that (1) I think methane leaks are a big problem for climate change, (2) I agree – as does everyone following this, including the EPA themselves – that the EPA has historically underreported methane leakage, and (3) this underreporting has doubtless given some degree of aid and comfort to the fracking industry. But this press release does not convincingly substantiate the allegations of scientific fraud and criminal misconduct against Dr. Allen, and it reeks of bias. A much more balanced presentation of both sides of the story can be found in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/09/this-heated-fight-over-methane-emissions-is-almost-as-hot-as-the-gas/). It may be that fraud and/or misconduct occurred; but that will only become clear after an actual investigation is done, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions. I would trust organizations like NC WARN much more if they didn’t engage in this sort of demagoguery. For example, NC WARN states prominently that Dr. Allen "has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years”, while noting much less prominently and clearly that the studies in question by Dr. Allen were primarily funded, and published, by the Environmental Defense Fund – a rather less damning fact, no? This reminds me of the deceitful hounding of climate scientists by climate change denialists; such tactics ought to have no place in rational debate.
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
New York Times, 21 March 2016, by Henry Fountain
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/nuclear-energy-power-plants-advanced-reactors.html?_r=0
Nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old: between 2029 and 2035, three dozen of our 99 reactors are due to close. It is possible that some plants could get their licenses extended, and four new plants are currently under construction; but with present energy policy it seems clear that we will see a major drop in nuclear power capacity overall in the coming years. Nuclear plants provide 19 percent of our electricity now, and they emit no CO2 or other greenhouse gases. When they close, they are generally replaced by coal or natural gas plants; it is difficult to replace them with solar or wind because those power sources are intermittent, whereas nuclear plants provide “baseline load” that can be relied upon at all times and in all weather. The impending closure of these plants therefore threatens the ability of the U.S. to meet the pledges it made in the recent Paris climate talks. Constructing new nuclear plants is difficult due to public opposition, pricing issues relative to other options, and the very long development and testing cycle required.
My take: This is one of the more interesting articles I’ve read in a while. The problem it outlines is real and serious. The rapid growth of solar and wind is clearly a positive development, but most analysts agree that that buildout is limited to perhaps about 50% of a typical country’s total energy mix because of issues of intermittency – where you get power from when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Technological advances in batteries and in large-scale grid distribution may ease that constraint – but that technology is not here yet, and we don’t know for sure whether it ever will be. Until then, we have to worry about where our baseline load is going to come from, and in general there are only three big options: nuclear, coal, and gas. Decreasing nuclear thus means increasing fossil fuels, almost inevitably, as countries that have moved away from nuclear in recent years, such as Germany and Japan, have discovered. This issue therefore poses a very real risk of missing climate targets, even amid the recent boom of solar and wind. I personally am a strong advocate of nuclear power, for this reason, but I accept that other people see that question differently. However, if you are anti-nuclear, you need to have a realistic alternative plan; a large buildout of underground storage of CO2, known as “carbon capture and sequestration”, is perhaps the only clear alternative, and has serious issues of its own, from cost to feasibility. This article poses the problem quite starkly, and thus provides welcome coverage of a topic that gets far too little airtime in the media. And I would note that putting a substantial price on carbon would help tremendously with this, by making nuclear more cost-competitive relative to coal and gas; it would then probably be the most cost-effective option for baseline load, which would allow the market to address this problem without further government intervention into energy policy.
New York Times, 21 March 2016, by Henry Fountain
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/nuclear-energy-power-plants-advanced-reactors.html?_r=0
Nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old: between 2029 and 2035, three dozen of our 99 reactors are due to close. It is possible that some plants could get their licenses extended, and four new plants are currently under construction; but with present energy policy it seems clear that we will see a major drop in nuclear power capacity overall in the coming years. Nuclear plants provide 19 percent of our electricity now, and they emit no CO2 or other greenhouse gases. When they close, they are generally replaced by coal or natural gas plants; it is difficult to replace them with solar or wind because those power sources are intermittent, whereas nuclear plants provide “baseline load” that can be relied upon at all times and in all weather. The impending closure of these plants therefore threatens the ability of the U.S. to meet the pledges it made in the recent Paris climate talks. Constructing new nuclear plants is difficult due to public opposition, pricing issues relative to other options, and the very long development and testing cycle required.
My take: This is one of the more interesting articles I’ve read in a while. The problem it outlines is real and serious. The rapid growth of solar and wind is clearly a positive development, but most analysts agree that that buildout is limited to perhaps about 50% of a typical country’s total energy mix because of issues of intermittency – where you get power from when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Technological advances in batteries and in large-scale grid distribution may ease that constraint – but that technology is not here yet, and we don’t know for sure whether it ever will be. Until then, we have to worry about where our baseline load is going to come from, and in general there are only three big options: nuclear, coal, and gas. Decreasing nuclear thus means increasing fossil fuels, almost inevitably, as countries that have moved away from nuclear in recent years, such as Germany and Japan, have discovered. This issue therefore poses a very real risk of missing climate targets, even amid the recent boom of solar and wind. I personally am a strong advocate of nuclear power, for this reason, but I accept that other people see that question differently. However, if you are anti-nuclear, you need to have a realistic alternative plan; a large buildout of underground storage of CO2, known as “carbon capture and sequestration”, is perhaps the only clear alternative, and has serious issues of its own, from cost to feasibility. This article poses the problem quite starkly, and thus provides welcome coverage of a topic that gets far too little airtime in the media. And I would note that putting a substantial price on carbon would help tremendously with this, by making nuclear more cost-competitive relative to coal and gas; it would then probably be the most cost-effective option for baseline load, which would allow the market to address this problem without further government intervention into energy policy.
Renewable Energy Surges to Record Levels Around the World
Renewable Energy Surges to Record Levels Around the World
BBC News, 1 June 2016, by Matt McGrath
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36420750
This article presents evidence from a recent study, the Renewables Global Status Report, for acceleration toward adoption of green energy worldwide. According to the article, in 2015 several milestones were reached: (1) new green energy sources were added at the fastest rate ever, (2) investment in green energy was more than double investment in new coal and gas plants, (3) the developing world spent more on green energy than the developed world, and (4) over 8 million people were employed by the green energy sector. This is attributed mainly to falling costs for wind and solar.
My take: Overall, it’s clear that investment in solar and wind is increasing rapidly, and this is doubtless good news. However, I find this article to be rather unbalanced. Biodiesel, fuel ethanol, and hydro appear to be lumped in as “green” or “renewable” even though there are many issues with those energy sources that make them problematic, whereas nuclear is apparently not included (a pet peeve of mine). Another problem is that China accounts for more than a third of all of the green energy installed in 2015, according to the article – but China's reporting of statistics is known to be extremely inaccurate and biased. Even if true, the claim that China’s large investment in green energy says something about the developing world as a whole seems misleading. Furthermore, the article’s claim that “the economic case is now fully there” for solar and wind seems overblown given that they are still heavily subsidized, or even mandated, in many markets. Finally, the article says nothing about problems posed by this rapid buildout, such as intermittency, pricing issues caused by intermittency, and inadequate grid technology. I should emphasize again that I think this is a good news overall; I am just providing some skepticism to counter what seems to me to be a strong bias in the article.
BBC News, 1 June 2016, by Matt McGrath
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36420750
This article presents evidence from a recent study, the Renewables Global Status Report, for acceleration toward adoption of green energy worldwide. According to the article, in 2015 several milestones were reached: (1) new green energy sources were added at the fastest rate ever, (2) investment in green energy was more than double investment in new coal and gas plants, (3) the developing world spent more on green energy than the developed world, and (4) over 8 million people were employed by the green energy sector. This is attributed mainly to falling costs for wind and solar.
My take: Overall, it’s clear that investment in solar and wind is increasing rapidly, and this is doubtless good news. However, I find this article to be rather unbalanced. Biodiesel, fuel ethanol, and hydro appear to be lumped in as “green” or “renewable” even though there are many issues with those energy sources that make them problematic, whereas nuclear is apparently not included (a pet peeve of mine). Another problem is that China accounts for more than a third of all of the green energy installed in 2015, according to the article – but China's reporting of statistics is known to be extremely inaccurate and biased. Even if true, the claim that China’s large investment in green energy says something about the developing world as a whole seems misleading. Furthermore, the article’s claim that “the economic case is now fully there” for solar and wind seems overblown given that they are still heavily subsidized, or even mandated, in many markets. Finally, the article says nothing about problems posed by this rapid buildout, such as intermittency, pricing issues caused by intermittency, and inadequate grid technology. I should emphasize again that I think this is a good news overall; I am just providing some skepticism to counter what seems to me to be a strong bias in the article.
Put A Price On Carbon
Put A Price On Carbon
We Mean Business Coalition, 2015, no author given
http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/put-price-carbon
This is an “action”, in the parlance of the We Mean Business Coalition, that companies can sign onto to declare their support for carbon pricing. It was circulated prior to the Paris climate talks in December 2015, and currently has 76 companies that have “committed to action”. “Committing to action” means agreeing to some specific goals set by the UN, including (1) setting an internal carbon price that is “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” (but how high that is, is not specified), (2) publicly advocating for carbon pricing, and (3) discussing their progress on those goals in their corporate annual reports.
My take: It is interesting to compare their list to the companies mentioned in the previous article on the CDP’s study; in particular, both Exxon and Microsoft are missing from WMBC’s list. Greenwashing is again a large risk here, and the vagueness of “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” is really unfortunate. Nevertheless, these are substantial commitments, and I take the fact that Exxon has not signed on to this to be an indication that this survey may be less susceptible to deception and greenwashing than the CDP’s study. There are some big names on this list, from Nestlé to Unilever, and my initial take, without doing further research, is that they probably deserve some real credit for this commitment. We’ll see how they follow through on it.
We Mean Business Coalition, 2015, no author given
http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/put-price-carbon
This is an “action”, in the parlance of the We Mean Business Coalition, that companies can sign onto to declare their support for carbon pricing. It was circulated prior to the Paris climate talks in December 2015, and currently has 76 companies that have “committed to action”. “Committing to action” means agreeing to some specific goals set by the UN, including (1) setting an internal carbon price that is “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” (but how high that is, is not specified), (2) publicly advocating for carbon pricing, and (3) discussing their progress on those goals in their corporate annual reports.
My take: It is interesting to compare their list to the companies mentioned in the previous article on the CDP’s study; in particular, both Exxon and Microsoft are missing from WMBC’s list. Greenwashing is again a large risk here, and the vagueness of “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” is really unfortunate. Nevertheless, these are substantial commitments, and I take the fact that Exxon has not signed on to this to be an indication that this survey may be less susceptible to deception and greenwashing than the CDP’s study. There are some big names on this list, from Nestlé to Unilever, and my initial take, without doing further research, is that they probably deserve some real credit for this commitment. We’ll see how they follow through on it.
At Least 150 Companies Prep For Carbon Prices
At Least 150 Companies Prep For Carbon Prices
USA TODAY, 15 September 2014, by Wendy Koch
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/us-companies-plan-for-climate-change-with-carbon-price/15526831/
This article from 2014 discusses a study from the CDP, a UK charity, that states that at least 150 companies around the world are incorporating the possibility of carbon pricing into their business plans. The CDP works with companies to help them disclose their carbon emissions, and surveys them annually regarding their policies surrounding emissions and climate change. This study was released just before the big climate summit in NYC in 2014, so the article mentions various related topics – the World Bank’s support for carbon pricing, U.S. inaction and opposition to carbon pricing, the relative success of carbon pricing in British Columbia, the existence of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Northeast's RGGI, China’s announcement of an intention to institute cap-and-trade, and EPA actions on coal plant emissions – without much substantive discussion.
My take: There is no doubt that companies try to anticipate future changes to the legal and regulatory environment, and momentum does seem to be building behind carbon pricing in recent years, so I don’t doubt the basic premise of the article. However, there is certainly cause for skepticism regarding the more specific claims of individual companies cited by the CDP’s report. Exxon is repeatedly listed in the article as one of the companies that now factors a future carbon price into their operations; indeed, they claim to use a price of $80 per ton CO2 in their internal bookkeeping. Given what we know about Exxon’s support of climate denialism, their decades of deception regarding their own research into climate change, etc., that simply reeks of greenwashing. Indeed, since all of the statistics gathered by the CDP are voluntarily disclosed by companies and cannot be checked, greenwashing is probably a major source of bias for the report as a whole. Microsoft, for example, apparently decided to assume a future price on carbon – but the price they chose is $6/ton. That is not carbon pricing, that is an insult to our intelligence.
USA TODAY, 15 September 2014, by Wendy Koch
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/us-companies-plan-for-climate-change-with-carbon-price/15526831/
This article from 2014 discusses a study from the CDP, a UK charity, that states that at least 150 companies around the world are incorporating the possibility of carbon pricing into their business plans. The CDP works with companies to help them disclose their carbon emissions, and surveys them annually regarding their policies surrounding emissions and climate change. This study was released just before the big climate summit in NYC in 2014, so the article mentions various related topics – the World Bank’s support for carbon pricing, U.S. inaction and opposition to carbon pricing, the relative success of carbon pricing in British Columbia, the existence of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Northeast's RGGI, China’s announcement of an intention to institute cap-and-trade, and EPA actions on coal plant emissions – without much substantive discussion.
My take: There is no doubt that companies try to anticipate future changes to the legal and regulatory environment, and momentum does seem to be building behind carbon pricing in recent years, so I don’t doubt the basic premise of the article. However, there is certainly cause for skepticism regarding the more specific claims of individual companies cited by the CDP’s report. Exxon is repeatedly listed in the article as one of the companies that now factors a future carbon price into their operations; indeed, they claim to use a price of $80 per ton CO2 in their internal bookkeeping. Given what we know about Exxon’s support of climate denialism, their decades of deception regarding their own research into climate change, etc., that simply reeks of greenwashing. Indeed, since all of the statistics gathered by the CDP are voluntarily disclosed by companies and cannot be checked, greenwashing is probably a major source of bias for the report as a whole. Microsoft, for example, apparently decided to assume a future price on carbon – but the price they chose is $6/ton. That is not carbon pricing, that is an insult to our intelligence.
The Political Hurdles Facing a Carbon Tax – And How to Overcome Them
The Political Hurdles Facing a Carbon Tax – And How to Overcome Them
Vox, 26 April 2016, by David Roberts
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints
While Roberts has written elsewhere about his reservations regarding carbon taxation, in this long and complex article he rhetorically accepts the premise of its importance, and discusses the politics of establishing a carbon tax. He begins by noting that virtually all existing carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes set a price that is well below the likely “social cost of carbon” (SCC; very roughly estimated to be about $75/ton CO2). This is, he argues, because of political constraints on carbon pricing: (1) concerns about regressive distributional impacts on the poor, (2) unwillingness on the part of citizens to pay the full SCC, and (3) opposition from fossil fuel interests. The key to overcoming these political constraints, he thinks, is to look at what would be done with the carbon tax revenue. Using the revenue to decrease other taxes, such as payroll and income taxes, substitutes a (regressive) carbon tax for existing (progressive) taxes, making constraint #1 even worse. Fee-and-dividend might be more politically viable, since it directly addresses constraint #2, but Roberts states that polling indicates otherwise: there is much less support for fee-and-dividend than for devoting carbon tax revenues to renewable energy research. Furthermore, whereas many decry cap-and-trade as “cap-and-giveaway”, and scorn the political compromises it involves, Roberts believes that those political compromises are precisely what makes cap-and-dividend politically possible, while fee-and-dividend is too ideologically pure to be politically viable. Roberts ends by mentioning that a carbon price should be sold to voters by emphasizing the positive things that will be done with the revenue (which, by the way, will be funded by a tax on dirty fossil fuels), rather than by emphasizing the carbon tax itself (which, by the way, will be used to do a laundry list of positive things).
My take: This article is very well-considered and thought-provoking, and must be taken seriously if we are to avoid ending up with a carbon tax, which we want, but set so low that it makes little difference to climate change. Roberts refers to polling data that he says indicate that only putting the tax revenue into renewables R&D has adequate public support (77%). However, while the support for fee-and-dividend is much lower (44%), the opposition to fee-and-dividend (25%) is barely different from the opposition to renewables R&D (21%). There are a great many people who have no opinion on fee-and-dividend, indicating a huge opportunity for education and outreach to raise positive awareness of this option. Regarding his final point, about how to sell a carbon tax to voters, I would note that it applies equally well to fee-and-dividend too. There has been a lot of buzz recently about a “universal basic income”: the idea of replacing existing welfare programs with a monthly check sent by the government to every citizen regardless of income, employment, or other circumstances. It is a type of welfare program that, like fee-and-dividend, appears to have an unusual amount of bipartisan appeal, and appears to have the support of many economists and other experts. I think that fee-and-dividend could be sold to voters as being, in effect, a universal basic income that happens to be funded, on the back end, with a tax on dirty fossil fuels. This would place the emphasis, as Roberts suggests, on the positive things being done with the revenue, rather than on the tax; and as Roberts notes, “who wouldn’t love getting checks?”
Vox, 26 April 2016, by David Roberts
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints
While Roberts has written elsewhere about his reservations regarding carbon taxation, in this long and complex article he rhetorically accepts the premise of its importance, and discusses the politics of establishing a carbon tax. He begins by noting that virtually all existing carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes set a price that is well below the likely “social cost of carbon” (SCC; very roughly estimated to be about $75/ton CO2). This is, he argues, because of political constraints on carbon pricing: (1) concerns about regressive distributional impacts on the poor, (2) unwillingness on the part of citizens to pay the full SCC, and (3) opposition from fossil fuel interests. The key to overcoming these political constraints, he thinks, is to look at what would be done with the carbon tax revenue. Using the revenue to decrease other taxes, such as payroll and income taxes, substitutes a (regressive) carbon tax for existing (progressive) taxes, making constraint #1 even worse. Fee-and-dividend might be more politically viable, since it directly addresses constraint #2, but Roberts states that polling indicates otherwise: there is much less support for fee-and-dividend than for devoting carbon tax revenues to renewable energy research. Furthermore, whereas many decry cap-and-trade as “cap-and-giveaway”, and scorn the political compromises it involves, Roberts believes that those political compromises are precisely what makes cap-and-dividend politically possible, while fee-and-dividend is too ideologically pure to be politically viable. Roberts ends by mentioning that a carbon price should be sold to voters by emphasizing the positive things that will be done with the revenue (which, by the way, will be funded by a tax on dirty fossil fuels), rather than by emphasizing the carbon tax itself (which, by the way, will be used to do a laundry list of positive things).
My take: This article is very well-considered and thought-provoking, and must be taken seriously if we are to avoid ending up with a carbon tax, which we want, but set so low that it makes little difference to climate change. Roberts refers to polling data that he says indicate that only putting the tax revenue into renewables R&D has adequate public support (77%). However, while the support for fee-and-dividend is much lower (44%), the opposition to fee-and-dividend (25%) is barely different from the opposition to renewables R&D (21%). There are a great many people who have no opinion on fee-and-dividend, indicating a huge opportunity for education and outreach to raise positive awareness of this option. Regarding his final point, about how to sell a carbon tax to voters, I would note that it applies equally well to fee-and-dividend too. There has been a lot of buzz recently about a “universal basic income”: the idea of replacing existing welfare programs with a monthly check sent by the government to every citizen regardless of income, employment, or other circumstances. It is a type of welfare program that, like fee-and-dividend, appears to have an unusual amount of bipartisan appeal, and appears to have the support of many economists and other experts. I think that fee-and-dividend could be sold to voters as being, in effect, a universal basic income that happens to be funded, on the back end, with a tax on dirty fossil fuels. This would place the emphasis, as Roberts suggests, on the positive things being done with the revenue, rather than on the tax; and as Roberts notes, “who wouldn’t love getting checks?”
What We’re Getting Wrong in the Carbon Tax Debate
What We’re Getting Wrong in the Carbon Tax Debate
Grist, 29 April 2016, by Clayton Aldern
http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-were-getting-wrong-in-the-carbon-tax-debate
This article speaks against recent “green infighting” in which major players and pundits, such as Paul Krugman, Bill Gates, and David Roberts [see below], have emphasized the downsides of a carbon tax. This, Aldern argues, risks making the perfect the enemy of the good (as the saying goes), by failing to acknowledge both the power and the importance of carbon pricing. Furthermore, it unwisely gives ammunition to climate denialists who oppose action of any kind on climate change. The “infighters” argue that a carbon tax will be less effective than some expect, for both economic and political reasons, and that other policy action would therefore be needed even if a carbon tax were instituted. Alpern concedes this point (perhaps too easily), but argues that a revenue-neutral carbon price is a climate change policy that both the left and the right could agree upon – unlike cap-and-trade, and unlike most subsidies and regulations – and that it is therefore unwise to undermine it with quibbles and nitpicks.
My take: I think Aldern is precisely right. The bipartisan appeal of fee-and-dividend makes it our most viable policy option, and while fee-and-dividend is not a panacea, it is foolish and counterproductive for those who advocate action of climate change to undermine it.
Grist, 29 April 2016, by Clayton Aldern
http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-were-getting-wrong-in-the-carbon-tax-debate
This article speaks against recent “green infighting” in which major players and pundits, such as Paul Krugman, Bill Gates, and David Roberts [see below], have emphasized the downsides of a carbon tax. This, Aldern argues, risks making the perfect the enemy of the good (as the saying goes), by failing to acknowledge both the power and the importance of carbon pricing. Furthermore, it unwisely gives ammunition to climate denialists who oppose action of any kind on climate change. The “infighters” argue that a carbon tax will be less effective than some expect, for both economic and political reasons, and that other policy action would therefore be needed even if a carbon tax were instituted. Alpern concedes this point (perhaps too easily), but argues that a revenue-neutral carbon price is a climate change policy that both the left and the right could agree upon – unlike cap-and-trade, and unlike most subsidies and regulations – and that it is therefore unwise to undermine it with quibbles and nitpicks.
My take: I think Aldern is precisely right. The bipartisan appeal of fee-and-dividend makes it our most viable policy option, and while fee-and-dividend is not a panacea, it is foolish and counterproductive for those who advocate action of climate change to undermine it.
Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F.
Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F.
New York Times, 23 April 2016, by Coral Davenport
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), two of the largest international lenders, announced their intention to press governments worldwide to impose a price on carbon emissions. The institutions expressed support for the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, but stated that achieving those goals will only be possible if a price is put on carbon pollution from fossil fuels. The World Bank’s focus is on global poverty, and they consider climate change a “key driver” of poverty; the IMF, often called the “lender of last resort” for countries, sees carbon pricing as a mechanism for countries to raise revenue without compromising their Paris pledges. They intend to provide both economic and technical assistance to countries that wish to establish carbon pricing, whether in the form of a tax or a cap-and-trade system (no mention is made of fee-and-dividend), and they are already working with 18 countries including China, with an overall goal of linking national systems into a global carbon trading market. Joining the World Bank and IMF in a public statement advocating carbon pricing were the leaders of Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Germany, and Mexico – but not the United States.
My take: This is a hugely positive development overall. The focus on a “carbon market” (which likely means cap-and-trade) is disappointing in some respects, but does introduce the interesting possibility of carbon emission permits being traded internationally, which could be a very powerful way to encourage sustainable development globally while recognizing the unfairness of past emissions and present economic conditions. The absence of support from Obama is unfortunate but unsurprising, and as the article notes, Hillary Clinton has not stated support for a carbon price, while Donald Trump questions the reality of anthropogenic climate change and has stated his intention to withdraw the U.S. from its Paris commitments. Progress on carbon pricing in the U.S. has only been at the state and regional level, and that appears likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Internationally, however, this announcement gives considerable new weight to the carbon pricing movement.
New York Times, 23 April 2016, by Coral Davenport
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), two of the largest international lenders, announced their intention to press governments worldwide to impose a price on carbon emissions. The institutions expressed support for the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, but stated that achieving those goals will only be possible if a price is put on carbon pollution from fossil fuels. The World Bank’s focus is on global poverty, and they consider climate change a “key driver” of poverty; the IMF, often called the “lender of last resort” for countries, sees carbon pricing as a mechanism for countries to raise revenue without compromising their Paris pledges. They intend to provide both economic and technical assistance to countries that wish to establish carbon pricing, whether in the form of a tax or a cap-and-trade system (no mention is made of fee-and-dividend), and they are already working with 18 countries including China, with an overall goal of linking national systems into a global carbon trading market. Joining the World Bank and IMF in a public statement advocating carbon pricing were the leaders of Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Germany, and Mexico – but not the United States.
My take: This is a hugely positive development overall. The focus on a “carbon market” (which likely means cap-and-trade) is disappointing in some respects, but does introduce the interesting possibility of carbon emission permits being traded internationally, which could be a very powerful way to encourage sustainable development globally while recognizing the unfairness of past emissions and present economic conditions. The absence of support from Obama is unfortunate but unsurprising, and as the article notes, Hillary Clinton has not stated support for a carbon price, while Donald Trump questions the reality of anthropogenic climate change and has stated his intention to withdraw the U.S. from its Paris commitments. Progress on carbon pricing in the U.S. has only been at the state and regional level, and that appears likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Internationally, however, this announcement gives considerable new weight to the carbon pricing movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)