Photo: Stephan Geyer via FlickrDuring my travels to the Rothbury Music Festival, I ended up in a cab in Grand Rapids, Mich., with a very cranky driver who wanted to talk ... about cap-and-trade ... at midnight, after I’d had a long day of traveling.
He began with the standard, “Where to?” But then, skipping all manner of weather-related small talk, he said (and I’m paraphrasing here), “So what do you think about that whole cap-and-trade thing they’re debating?”
“Oh, well, it just passed in the House!” I said cheerfully.
“Yeah, I know. And I’m about to call up my representatives and ask them what the hell happened. They’re supposed to be representin’ me! And I sure as hell can’t pay for this cap-and-trade nonsense. I’m losing money as it is.”
To this guy—living in a state that’s been hit especially hard by the tanking economy, where the unemployment rate is about 14 percent—cap-and-trade sounds like a bum deal. He drives a cab for a living, and he sees this new legislation as a threat to that living. Maybe he thinks he’ll have to buy a new, more fuel-efficient cab or pay for the “privilege” to pollute. Maybe he believes the debunked but persistent right-wing talking points claiming that cap-and-trade would cost every American household $3,128 a year. Maybe he doesn’t believe climate change is happening. Or maybe he doesn’t quite understand how all this will affect him and the prospect of change is frightening.
I don’t know because I didn’t ask. I’m ashamed to say I just sat there and listened to him complain without challenging his points, without suggesting that cap-and-trade could actually create jobs and help revitalize his state’s economy, without spouting some science on how we have to do something or else we’re all screwed.
Maybe I’m a bad environmentalist. Maybe I was just tired. Or maybe we haven’t quite figured out how to talk to people like my cab driver. People who aren’t part of the big, bad, pollutey companies we like to villainize, but who are barely squeaking by in industries that will be affected by the bill. What do we say to them?
What would you have said?
Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Threaded
its easy being green Posted 11:15 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 11:42 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 11:45 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
veritone Posted 5:57 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 6:47 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
EBJSCIENCE Posted 7:01 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 7:07 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
EBJSCIENCE Posted 7:56 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 8:18 pm
15 Jul 2009
And as for the first part, since the US and Europe represent the main export market of places like China and India, we can exert pressure on them to reduce emissions simply by raising a tariff on all goods from countries that don't limit their emissions to an acceptable level given their population and/or GDP. Then it won't matter whether a factory is located in the US or China (all things being equal), because the emissions will be factored into the cost either way.
I agree that individuals who care about this issue ought to be taking steps on their own regardless of how the market or corrective government regulation prices emissions. But that alone won't be enough to make the widespread changes needed to reduce global emissions to acceptable levels.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:23 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 4:54 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 7:09 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 11:38 am
16 Jul 2009
Efficiency provisionsThose sections will require that the manufacturing capacity now idled in Michiganto be put to work.
Permalink
brainz Posted 12:09 pm
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
EBJSCIENCE Posted 12:10 pm
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 1:53 pm
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 3:38 pm
16 Jul 2009
Who is going to voluntarily buy the amount of RECs needed to reduce emissions to safe levels?
And if there are people in the private sector willing and able to do so, why haven't they done it yet?
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 11:00 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 11:22 am
17 Jul 2009
Fat chance. That's not happening now even without any price on emissions (some computer companies assemble in the United States, but virtually all the components are fabricated in Asia). But at any rate, keep in mind that international shipping also emits carbon, and we can relatively easily take that into account, since we know where every product we buy is made.
"If America raises the price to do business in this country these business will move over time to foreign countries, where they most likely will produce more pollution than in this country where we have environmental standards."
That's why a tariff is appropriate for any country that doesn't limit their emissions, as I already told you.
"The net result will be an increase in pollution in the world & less manufacturing jobs for americans."
Not with an emissions tariff. Just think of it as a semi-embargo on a country that possesses weapons of mass destruction (coal-fired power plants, that is).
"You don't appear to care about these jobs, but the person that works in a factory does not have the education to be a nurse which is why we have a shortage of nursing."
So train more nurses. If the free market works like you claim it does, this shouldn't be a problem.
"It appears to me that you look down you nose at the working class people in this country, because they are not as educated as you are, but they are the backbone of America."
It's the poorest people who will be most affected by climate change--in America and everywhere else. But if you think cap-and-trade will have too great an adverse affect on the lower and middle class I'd me more than happy to make the overall tax system more progressive to compensate.
"I work in the real world and I can tell you that we will loose jobs overseas manufacturing companies, because people will gravitate to where cost are the cheapest."
Not with an emissions tariff. Do I have to say it again?
"Do you want to buy your cars from china? I don't."
You don't have to. It's a free market. At any rate, most cars manufactured for the US market, even by foreign companies, are manufactured in North America to keep down shipping costs. Of course, many (most?) of them are made in Mexico because of cheaper labor, but that is not likely to change much if at all after emissions legislation is passed.
"Your comment about strong arming China is not going to work either, because they are the ones that are financing our governments debt due to wasteful spending."
That has nothing to do with anything. They're not going to stop financing our debt because we buy less from them. And if they do, we have an easy solution: raise taxes to pay for what we want instead of borrowing for it.
"They are in the near future going to be the ones that dictate policies to the US."
Better learn Chinese then.
"Do you really think that we have much leverage over them."
Yes.
"I think not."
Well you're wrong.
"Cap and trade will weaken our enconomy and strenghthen countries like China and India."
Not with an emissions tariff.
"The only way it will work is to level the playing field for everybody."
Like with an emissions tariff.
Permalink
veritone Posted 11:29 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 11:33 am
17 Jul 2009
Hospitals, by the way, are some of the more efficient buildings we have since they are large and boxy, and hence have a low surface area-to-volume ratio, resulting in less heat escaping into or out of the building and thus lower heating and cooling cost. If we all lived in hospitals (or, equivalently, apartment buildings) we'd have a lot smaller energy consumption to begin with, and so converting to low-emissions energy would be easier.
As for nuclear, yes, it is much cleaner than coal, but of course it too is made of fabricated materials and so also requires energy to build--I'd imagine those giant concrete cooling towers aren't very environmentally friendly in their manufacture. And then there is the issue of nuclear waste disposal. But assuming you can solve that problem, there's no reason we shouldn't consider nuclear alongside other low-emissions choices. What cap-and-trade will do is factor any emissions a given energy generation system results in into the price. So those who really believe nuclear is the cheapest clean choice should be entirely in favor of a cap-and-trade system.
Permalink
EES Posted 12:20 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 12:31 pm
17 Jul 2009
I don't know, but it's the logical thing to do. I'd like to see someone do a poll on it. But regardless of its popularity, it's the right thing to do if you actually care about worldwide GHG emissions.
It doesn't literally have to be a tariff to have the desired effect. The bottom line is that we have to take account of the emissions resulting from any given good. If our only way of doing that is to price it based on the total emissions of the country of origin, that's not our fault.
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 1:48 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 2:10 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 2:15 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 2:28 pm
17 Jul 2009
- namely, land and water - you have to analyze what gives the greatest
amount of usable energy compared to construction materials used and
emissions produced."Which is exactly what cap-and-trade does. Generation facilities with a higher GHG footprint will cost more to construct. Of course, if the reduction in emissions for generated power outweighs any extra emissions in infrastructure creation, that will also be reflected in the cost, and so if nuclear is dirtier to build but cleaner to operate, it could come out ahead, all things being equal."Since atomic energy is millions of times more dense than anything else
currently known, it takes the lead here. Plus, wind and solar farms
require huge tracts of land (for wind that's 235 sq. miles for 1,000 MW
electric generated - that's 50% of the size of Los Angeles city) vs. 1
sq. mile for current nuclear plants."If this is the case then prices in a cap-and-trade system will reflect that."The "waste" is actually partially-spent nuclear fuel and can be (and is
in France) recycled using more advanced, safe, reliable reactors - like
the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Using this type, we can
reduce the spent fuel volume to around 1% of its original size and
stored for only 300 years vs 1 million. And there's enough thorium in
the US to last hundreds of years. Plus, following
Megatons-to-MegaWatts protocol, we can decrease the nuclear weapon
stockpile, too, while generating usable energy."Sounds great to me."How are the Europeans doing with their Cap-and-Trade system? Is it
working for them as well as their adherence to Kyoto? If not, why
would we think our system or scheme would fare (speaking of taxi's) any
better?"Well obviously no system will work well if it is neutered by special interests. The goal is to produce the best system possible, not give up because it's hard.
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 2:31 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 2:49 pm
17 Jul 2009
that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of
the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase
in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities." epa.gov"Second, is earths' climate inherently sensitive or inherently resilient to alterations, either natural or man-made?"It should be pretty clear to anyone that the earth's climate has changed drastically in the planet's history. There's no question that the ball of rock itself will survive any given change in climate. The question is whether the creatures living on the ball will, and there is plenty of evidence of mass extinctions as a result of previous changes in global climate."I'm not sure if I follow your logic on the "eat more meat than we need
to" as I haven't seen any documentation worth believing on meat
consumption."Uh it's pretty simple. Meat has a higher GHG footprint than other foods. It's pretty simple to see why even without any empirical data: what do cows eat? Plants. Well there are no more calories in a cow than there were in the plants it's eaten over the course of its life, and in fact many times fewer because of all the energy the cow expends living. So a cow is just a tasty way to turn a lot of calaries into very few calories, and in the process release more GHGs per calorie. Meanwhile, most humans evolved to live on a lot less meat than we eat today, and in fact most of us would be healthier if we ate less meat than we do. But even if we don't eat less meat, we can still reduce the GHG footprint of cows by feeding them what they evolved to eat so they don't fart GHGs. Even then, though, a cow is still an energy-inefficient source of food.
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 2:59 pm
17 Jul 2009
which comprises 80% of the atmosphere, or CO2, which comprises 0.038%?"I don't know, but a few micrograms of mercury per cubic meter is enough to cause health problems in a human, so I wouldn't be surprised if a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause similar problems for the health of the global ecosystem. In any case, the EPA seems pretty convinced that it's enough.
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 3:03 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 3:25 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 3:46 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 3:47 pm
17 Jul 2009
believe - of bureaucrats) doesn't equate with quoting the EPA."But I didn't quote the IPCC, I quoted the EPA."I don't recall there ever being a debate, confab, conference or
smack-down between the pro- and anti- AGW sides. Since science isn't
decided by consensus, but by empirical, repeatable evidence, it would
seem reasonable to engage in a well-moderated, open-to-the-public,
televised muti-stage debate where the evidence, pro- and con- , is
presented, ideally with cross-examination (but without the ad hominem
attacks)."You don't recall there being a debate? What exactly do you think we're doing right now? As for TV, unless all you watch is American Idol, it would be pretty hard to avoid hearing the debate there. In any case, I don't recall any scientific issue being settled by a "smackdown". That seems quite antithetical to the considered evaluation of empirical evidence you purport to be in favor of."About meat: Cows eat grass (a carbohydrate @ 3.75 calories per gram)
and metabolize that into protein (at 4 calories per gram, but also
amino acids - which are essential to life), so it would seem that
eating proteins in meat are actually beneficial, energy-use-wise,
compared to carbohydrates"Yes, but we do not need to eat as much meat as we do to obtain the required amount of nutrients from them, and many of the same nutrients can be found in other foods. I never said that we have to become vegetarians, only not eat more meat than is required."What mass extinctions are you referring to, the dinosaurs or some mankind extinction?"There has only been a 'mankind' for a short part of earth's history, and of course it hasn't gone extinct yet, since we're still here (although many of our fellow Homos aren't). There have been extinctions of other species as a result of pretty much every major climate change event since the beginning of life on earth."Are we anywhere near that kind of catastrophic alteration now or in the foreseable future?"Not necessarily extinction, but a warming earth certainly presents challenges to our living comfortably, especially if we insist on maintaining our current standard of living."Have you looked at the research done by Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com?"Oh of course, the findings of a 52 member international panel can be disregarded a priori, but the claims of a single person with a website can be taken at face value. Now I've got it.
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 4:06 pm
17 Jul 2009
enhance the growth of their plants, with no ill effects to the workers
in the greenhouse."A tropical greenhouse can also have an ambient temperature of 85 degrees F without killing either the plants or the workers, but if the earth's average temperature were 85 degree F we'd all be toast. The direct threat to humans isn't the concentration of CO2 itself (unless it gets really high, resulting in asphyxiation) but the atmospheric warming that the gas causes in high concentrations (hence global "warming"). Based on the best available data and models, the concentration at which dangerous warming occurs is well below 1,000 ppm, and in fact uncomfortably close to current levels. If you have a specific issue with a specific model or set of data, please tell us.
Permalink
EBJSCIENCE Posted 4:12 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 5:09 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 5:13 pm
17 Jul 2009
interested party that does some research and voices an opinion opposed
to the "consensus" is routinely lambasted as a "denier" (nice smear,
that)."And apparently any person who looks at the evidence and comes to a conclusion other than the one you come to is a conspiracist. At any rate, I'd be happy to look at any specific claims of Dr. Spencer you'd like to put forth.
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 5:21 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 6:00 pm
17 Jul 2009
the basic tenets of Christianity were true, and that the gospel of
Christ really changes people's lives."Do you happen to know what evidence he is referring to? Please enlighten us.
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 6:58 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 7:14 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 7:16 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 7:28 pm
17 Jul 2009
evidence for review and responsible comment."Me too."Not sure why I receive
snarky responses in return, unless it's indicative of some insecurity.
If not, then why engage in it?"Maybe you expect too much from a Li'l Abner character."The billions of those who have never experienced the things we take for
granted now are being told that they can't have what we have - because
to have what we have requires energy and producing energy is bad for
the earth."They're being told it because it's the truth. If the whole world lived like the US, we'd be in big trouble. And the people who would be in the most trouble are the people in developing countries. In any case, if we all agreed to reduce our emissions to the same amount per capita, the greatest reductions would come in the US (currently emitting ~23 tons/year per capita) and other developed countries, while places like India (2 tons/year per capita) and China (4 tons/year per capita) would have to reduce their current emissions much less, if at all, depending on what limit is set. All they would have to do is abandon the possibility of becoming as big an emitter as the US currently is. Meanwhile, if the US reduced per capita emissions to be more like that of China, we'd be in better shape.Underlying your argument is the premise that we can't live a good life without emitting the amount of GHGs we do. I question that premise. Lots of the activities that emit the most GHGs are unnecessary luxuries. We can be just as happy with a low-emissions life as a high-emissions life. A good Christian ought to understand that.
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 7:34 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 7:41 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 8:04 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 8:08 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 8:45 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 8:51 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 8:59 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 9:04 pm
17 Jul 2009
wasn't vulgar or snarky, was contributing a reasonable commentary or
asking thoughtful questions, then they were welcome. Was I wrong?"No one's stopping you from speaking. Are you trying to stop me from speaking my mind? If not then you shouldn't have any objection to my continuing to do so. Even snarkily, if I so desire (though that's not really my aim. I'm just trying to provide some levity. Wink wink.).
Permalink
DocForesight Posted 10:29 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 10:43 pm
17 Jul 2009
of his research giving him supporting evidence for his choice, you
haven't established anything"Since you haven't provided any evidence for something you yourself claim to believe, you haven't established anything. You're the one I'm talking to, not Dr. Spencer. And if you believe what he believes, you should be able to provide me with the evidence you used to come to that belief, so there is no need to contact him directly. Just show it to me yourself."If I were to comment in such a manner on something about which I know
little, I would expect someone who knows more to enlighten me,
hopefully, without a condescending tone."Exactly. So why don't you enlighten me instead of telling me I'm not worthy of an explanation unless I read a bibliography that I as yet still have not been shown, and of whose existence I still have no evidence?
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 11:24 pm
17 Jul 2009
snarky retorts probably has run out of verbal ammunition and restorts
to the lowest common denominator in their arsenal. ;) ;)"I'm also smart enough to know that that itself is an ad hominem attack and not based on any examination of evidence. Your obsession with snark is simply a distraction from the real issues, as is your insistence on reading yet-unidentified bibliographies. You haven't refuted any of the evidence I've presented (and I've presented plenty) but simply directed me to the website of one scientist whose claims I am supposed to take on faith, even though you won't take the claims of equally-qualified scientists with the opposite convictions on faith.
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 10:52 am
18 Jul 2009
Permalink
EBJSCIENCE Posted 9:29 pm
18 Jul 2009
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 12:08 pm
19 Jul 2009
Permalink