The most powerful force in nature isn't the nuclear force, or anything wimpy like that; it's the force of a bad idea whose moment has arrived.
Whenever I wanted to do something stupid and argued that my friends had done it, Mom would always say, "If Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do that too?"
From The Oregonian:
A bill backed by Gov. Ted Kulongoski to give a big boost to biofuels use and production in Oregon passed the Senate Revenue Committee unanimously Tuesday and heads to the Senate floor for final approval.
The bill, House Bill 2210, already passed the House on a 53-4 vote.
The bill grants big tax breaks to biofuels producers, allowing them to be exempt from property taxes and also granting them tax credits for producing the raw materials or making them into renewable fuel.
The bill also gives consumers a tax credit for powering their cars or heating their homes using biofuel. And it requires gas stations to sell ethanol blended gas or biodiesel once in-state production of those fuels reaches target levels.
Analysts project that biofuel makers and users will get about $5 million of tax breaks per year.
Backers of the bill gave each other hand shakes and congratulatory back-slaps as it nears passage. They are hopeful the incentives will help make Oregon a magnet for the generation and use of biofuels.
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 2:32 pm
20 Jun 2007
http://www.govlink.org/biodiesel/real-biodiesel-video.htm ...
A few months ago this refinery announced that 1% of its oil will come from Washington State, if consumers are willing to pay a premium for home grown. Most will come from Canada and Malaysia. This whole biofuel, global warming thing has opened my eyes to the general incompetence of politicians. They have no idea what they are doing. I didn't realize that until recently.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:58 pm
20 Jun 2007
Don't ever think that just because you don't know what they're doing, that they don't know what they are doing.
Meaning that it is a huge mistake to ascribe to incompetence that which is also explicable by self-interest/venality.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:10 am
21 Jun 2007
You guys rail on corn ethanol with good reason.
When there are other, much more energy efficient strategies available and apparently being put in, you rail on it too.
What the ...?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:32 am
21 Jun 2007
Soy biodiesel (what we use here in the States) uses five times as much cropland as corn to move a car the same distance. Canola, three times as much. Americans driving soy based biodeisel cars are usurping 10 football fields worth (14 acres) of vegetable oil (removing it from food futures markets) annually to feed their car. That is almost an acre a month. To get a feel for the immensity of 10 football fields, go stand in the middle of just one.
Ever hear of a thing called an ecological footprint test? It provides a rough feel for how much of the planet you are claiming as your own. The average American is purported to have a score of about 24 acres, which as you might guess is the highest in the world. The average American would have to add all but a few of those 14 acres mentioned earlier to the mobility part of their test score if they drove a car that uses 100% biodiesel made from soybeans, which would increase their score from 24 acres to about 38 acres, which is an increase of over 50%
http://www.agrisurfer.com/mirror.aspx?dt=/attachment%2Fsize%5Foriginal%2F84016145%2DC762%2D41FC%2DB715%2DC5CB0ECF266C%2Ejpg
http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com/
Put that in your car and smoke it. A crop is just one species short of being as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:17 am
21 Jun 2007
Biofuels do not imply only corn or soy.
Either the legislature is poor in its phrasing or the journalist did not elaborate on what they meant.
It seems like a credit to homeowners burning wood for heating is a good thing: The bill also gives consumers a tax credit for ... heating their homes using biofuel.
This creates jobs, while potentially having a positive climate effect: And it requires gas stations to sell ethanol blended gas or biodiesel once in-state production of those fuels reaches target levels.
I say potential, under the assumption that eventually these plants will be producing biodiesel from wood residue.
I agree with food-based ethanol or biodiesel as a negative, but the phrasing of that article does not imply anything about food grade ethanol.
Furthermore, corn that is farmed throughout U.S. is hardly food grade, and this basically means that we're already farming for sh!ts and giggles otherwise known as the burger industry. And if corn ethanol is legislated to be the case, this will do two things: bring up the cost of beef, and bring up the cost of gas. Both are not bad from a policy standpoint, while not good from a consumer perspective.
I'm against corn and soy based on the energy efficiency aspect of using these as an energy source. If, for example, this was willow, or some other woody source, I would be all for it.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:27 am
21 Jun 2007
How is cellulosic any more realistic than running on corn?
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
I mean it's "better", but it's still pretty damned crappy.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:57 am
21 Jun 2007
How do you get around? Do you drive? Or if you're extremely dedicated and do not own a car and bike 200 miles a week, do you ever get rides, such as for moving to a different house for example?
What do you eat? Do you ride your bike to every farm in the area? Or do you own a farm, so that you can get the food just like that? And if you do own a farm, how do you exactly pay the taxes on it?
These questions are aimed at asking, how do you avoid using petro fuel? If you don't avoid using it right now, maybe you should try to think about the reduced carbon footprint that cellulosic will afford you.
Instead of adding the same link every time?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:23 am
21 Jun 2007
Over the past year I have kept up a correspondence with one of the advisers to one of the biggest promoters of biofuels in the Senate.
"Do you guys monitor what the states are doing to promote biofuels when proposing new federal incentives?", I asked him once.
"Of course," he bridled. "But we're the federal government, and we can't let State policy determine federal policy. They can do what we like. That's just an add on."
"So, if you are monitoring the situation, is this database, like, public?", I asked. (Of course he didn't have any such database.)
So, no matter how generous the feds are, the States are under no restraint to add their own subsidies.
When you sum up all the incentives, as we have attempted, from local tax holidays for plants to volumetric tax credits, to subsidies for biofuel blending and distribution, it paints an amazing picture. When we wrote that study, last year, there were only a couple of states that were subsidizing crops specifically for biofuel use, and the few examples were small.
Atreyger, your optimism is charming:
I say potential, under the assumption that eventually these plants will be producing biodiesel from wood residue.
For one, the transesterification process is completely different from biomass-to-liquid (BTL) processes (to which I assume to are referring). So, no, any plants built to produce biodiesel are not likely to be converted to BTL.
The Oregon legislation is not all about wood. If it has not changed much since May (see earlier report), then it would provide a substantial incentive -- 90 cents a bushel, a 15-25% price premium -- to divert grains (wheat, corn, barley and triticale) towards biofuel production and away from other uses.
Is that moral?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:20 am
21 Jun 2007
Yea, transesterification method is drastically different from gasification or cellulysis, and I meant to say ethanol.
It also appears that the cellulysis pathway, such as the enzymatic pathway, is not drastically different from the regular pathway with a pretreatment step added. Thus it seems that while my optism may be charming, your pessimism is stifling.
Permalink
Jeremy Graybill Posted 6:42 am
21 Jun 2007
To help Oregon's rural communities provide economically viable feedstocks for Oregon-consumed biofuels, HB 2210 establishes state production tax credits for such feedstocks as woody biomass, canola, barley, triticale, straw, camelina and flax. And in a companion bill, HB 2211, the Business Energy Tax Credit is expanded to provide for greater capital investment in biorefineries. HB 2211 still awaits passage in the Oregon Senate.
Like any industry, biofuels production has environmental impacts. The Oregon Environmental Council worked with the legislature on this bill to ensure that the renewable fuel standards can't be met by biodiesel produced from imported palm oil (palm plantations are supplanting tropical forests) and supported complementary legislation that ensures corn production does not receive feedstock tax credits (conventionally grown corn requires heavy pesticide application and irrigation). There will also be a two-year delay for wheat tax credits.
In the coming months, we here at OEC will work to ensure that the rules implementing this legislation are written to favor the biofuel feedstocks and biorefinery operations that are most environmentally beneficial.
Here in Oregon, wheat prices are up from $3.50 / bu. last year to $5.50 today. That's over a 60% increase and it is a much needed change for Eastern Oregon's economy. Although you may have to pay a little more for your loaf of bread. The fuel crops are putting a little bit of a spark into the agricultural community. Ask any Eastern Oregon wheat or hay farmer and they might even tell you that its overdue. From a consumer standpoint that means that the cost of Wheat in a $1.39 - one pound loaf of bread is up from $0.05 to $0.075 approximately.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And try not to post anonymously.
best regards,
-Jeremy
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:52 am
21 Jun 2007
I am not saying she was totally right. Pilot cellulosic plants are already being bolted onto sugar-ethanol distilleries in Brazil, to be fed by bagasse. Similar technologies will no doubt be applied to some corn-ethanol plants.
But many plants will not be so easily converted, unless money is no barrier. Which brings us back to the issue of subsidies. Throw enough money at any technology and you'll get some results. But is it cost-effective?
Jeremy: Thanks for the further information. But in all the discussion of environmental effects, has the Oregon Environmental Council thought about the spill-over effects of biofuel production in the United States, even when its feedstocks are entirely locally sourced? Corn acreage in the USA has expanded this year by 15%, while soybean acreage is down by 11%. And, each year, more of the soybeans that the USA produces are going into biodiesel. To make up the shortfall in supplying world demand for soybeans, the industry is expanding rapidly in Latin America, including in the Amazon. So no matter how much one tries to protect the local market, spill-over effects on the wider world cannot be easily avoided.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:57 am
21 Jun 2007
You mean "economically viable" if you don't count the cost of the subsidy as a cost, right?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:04 am
21 Jun 2007
JMG,
Subsidies are everywhere, and they are especially useful for industries at their start-up, such as the biofuels industry. Subsidies are a way to level the market for a newcoming technology or an underrepresented sector, which otherwise may not be economically feasible.
I do not specifically condone subsidies, because there may be better ways of doing things: Libertarians (preferably with a big L for the individual freedoms) might be right about the free market. Or maybe not. Our system is not libertarian. And there are already some heavy handed players.
So with due respect to all of Ron's failed subsidies, it does not appear that this one will lead to Armageddon.
Artem
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:07 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:10 am
21 Jun 2007
Hell, even Corn Ethanol in US causes more rainforrest descruction.
It's all about fungability.
Sadly most people don't understand fungibility/leakage.
Permalink
Jeremy Graybill Posted 7:17 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:20 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:23 am
21 Jun 2007
The conclusion, if I recall correctly (Ron may have the link), was that corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel were all, to a greater or lesser degere, far more expensive fuels than petroleum fuel and far inferior to simply a 1 mpg increase in fleet mileage as far as CO2 reduction.
The issue is not the subsidy per se --- people can light their BBQ grills with $100 bills if they want --- it's that the need for a subsidy should be interpreted as a sign that the technology is inferior, and that there are better ways to get to the goal.
So, unless biofuels are an end in the themselves (and it's worth asking why that should be), then it's reasonable to ask why Oregon thinks it wants them. From the comments posted above, it appears to be about giving farmers more money; well why not simply create a state commodity price support program and cut out the biofuels middleman?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jeremy Graybill Posted 7:23 am
21 Jun 2007
What is needed is a clear vision of what sustainability criteria need to be addressed, such as land use changes or impacts on biodiversity, water resources, soil quality, buying locally first, energy balance analysis and so on. There is not yet an agreed-upon set of sustainability standards for biofuels. Eventually all biofuels should have a sustainability certificate that outlines their carbon savings and their ecological impact so that the public can use their dollars to support more local and sustainable practices over those which are destructive.
We are attempting to create an established biofuels sustainability criterion to provide guidance for the industry and the public; it is a dialogue for ways to address the need to develop low carbon fuels and a way to address global warming pollution.
The most important priority of a new energy policy is to manage current energy usage and to focus efforts first on conservation and efficiency. Conservation is the cheapest way to save energy at the source. Vehicle efficiency standards must be improved for the true impact of sustainable biofuels to have the needed impact of reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.
New sources should be not only environmentally sound, but developed in a socially responsible manner and production facilities locally-owned when possible. The public benefits of an agriculturally based biofuels operations must be able to adhere to established sustainable agricultural practices. These standards specify that they are economically viable, attentive to water quality and land-use regulations, locally owned and managed when possible, ecologically sound and a provider of family-wage jobs.
Biofuel feedstocks must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and analysis of the amount of GHG emissions reduced must be agreed upon by a consensus of crop scientists and academics so that low carbon fuels thrive.
All crop-based biofuel developments should be analyzed to assess the individual impacts to: wildlife and wetlands, land preservation and topsoil loss, nutrient management, appropriate water use and fossil energy inputs (including pesticides and herbicides) required to extract renewable energy.
Cellulosic and other biomass energy should not outweigh the need for wildlife habitat and recreational uses and no extraction should occur unless all appropriate regulations and safeguards have been formally addressed. Watersheds should similarly not be negatively affected by biomass extraction. Biomass must be renewable on the lands where it was originally grown.
Biofuels feedstocks cannot be grown on environmentally sensitive lands like old growth forests, native grasslands or on ecosystems that support a rich diversity of species and life.
Byproducts of biofuel production should be utilized in an ecologically sound manner. Handling these products in a responsible manner should promote sustainable livestock production rather than factory farm production.
Best regards,
-Jeremy
Permalink
Jeremy Graybill Posted 7:29 am
21 Jun 2007
A tax incentive allows you to keep it.
Quite different. Especially if you're an accountant.
It's also worth noting that the incentives are sunsetted out once Oregon production reaches a defined threshold.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:30 am
21 Jun 2007
"We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70-300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1909827.e ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:33 am
21 Jun 2007
At best thats just semantics.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:33 am
21 Jun 2007
It is very easy to say, "Everything is subsidized, so why not this." First of all, it would be an amazing coincidence, and contrary to all the rules of political economy, if the incidence of subsidization were uniform across all industries. We know, in any case, that certain ones get more favored than others.
Subsidies to coal-ethanol are a very expensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our estimate was that they cost over $500 per ton of CO2-equivalent avoided for the USA as a whole. (We are seeing similar orders of magnitude in other countries.) Researchers at Oregon State University more recently estimated (based albeit on a plant that would import corn from the Midwest) that the full social cost (market price plus subsidies) of reducing CO2 through the production and local consumption of corn ethanol in Oregon would exceed $10,000 per ton of CO2 avoided.
Cellulosic ethanol has much more to offer in terms of CO2 reduction, but its costs are much higher (and so are the subsidies being proposed).
At the end of the day, can any country -- or state government -- afford to NOT consider cost-effectiveness?
As for the infant-industry argument, there is nothing new about fermenting and distilling sugars or grains into ethyl alcohol. People have been doing that for millennia. In any case, corn ethanol has been produced for fuel for almost 30 years in the USA. The Energy Information Administration has labelled corn ethanol as a "mature industry".
The biodiesel transesterification process also uses old, tried-and true chemistry. You can make the stuff in your kitchen, for cripes sake! Hardly a poster child for an infant industry.
If you want to consider cellulosic ethanol an infant industry, fine. But the normal policy prescription is R&D assistance and perhaps some initial grants to build demonstration plants, not production-related or input subsidies (which are just the types of subsidies that tend to be extremely hard to end), and especially not subsidies that do not distinguish between the infant and grown-up forms of the industry.
Jeremy,
All nice criteria, but I still don't see how they address spill-over effects, or as GreyFlcn so nicely puts it, the fungibility question.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:36 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:50 am
21 Jun 2007
What strikes me is that this all has the air of starting with an assumption -- more biofuels -- and working backward from that, attempting to mitigate the environmental and economic downsides.
But why start with biofuels? If you have the dual goal of a) helping Oregon farmers, and b) using less oil, why not put wind turbines on their land to power plug-in hybrids? Or put money into production credits for farmers and public transit for cities? Or focus on land use, to prevent farms from being bought up by developers? Etc. etc.
I'm sure all these things are on your radar, but they all strike me as more promising -- more bang for the buck -- than pouring money into biofuels. If you started from a clean slate, with no presumptions or biases, would biofuels really be your choice to achieve your goals?
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:01 am
21 Jun 2007
Why not instead promote organic farming in Oregon, with a focus on reducing fossil fuel inputs.
That would do the most good for farmers.
_
However the real question there being.
Are you trying to benefit farmers as people, or "farmers" as corporations.
Whats good for ADM and Cargill might not be so good for the actual people who do the work.
http://greyfalcon.net/farmers
http://greyfalcon.net/farmers2
http://www.relocalize.net/more_on_ethanol
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:14 am
21 Jun 2007
But more-so because Organic is about the only food sector which is showing major growth.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070 ...
http://feedroom.businessweek.com/index.jsp?fr_story=FEEDR ...
http://asap.sustainability.uiuc.edu/members/dananderson/d ...
There's money to be had.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:19 pm
21 Jun 2007
I don't understand why carbon sequestration is the ultimate end goal in the $500 figure. It appears that one of the best yardsticks is energy production, which can more than double (in some cases up to 500%) the return of energy investment to power our vehicles. That, and create more money for farmers; and produce incentives (at least on the East Coast) for proper forest management.
Yes, as a carbon sequestration project, cellulosic ethanol is a relatively poor money investment. But that ain't the end all...
Also, as Jeremy pointed out, these aren't subsidies (whew, thank heavens I don't have to talk about these any more), these are tax breaks. There is a blatant difference between getting a welfare check every month and not having to pay taxes. THIS IS THE POINT OF INCENTIVES!
Sorry for all the caps there. Incentives are supposed to start a program, which otherwise might not be attractive due to initial starting costs. If there were more positive incentives on production of fuel efficient vehicles, we might have some sort of an efficiency increase.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:21 pm
21 Jun 2007
Anyone willing to pay $6.90 for gasoline?
http://www.energybulletin.net/30685.html
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:01 pm
21 Jun 2007
He, I've got a job for you working for a Washington lobbyist, Artreyger! Everybody, even Congress, talks about all the "subsidies" to the oil industry. Guess what: the value of actual direct "welfare checks" to the oil industry is small. Most of the "subsidies" to the industry actually take the form of special tax provisions in the tax code that reduce their tax bill compared with what they would pay were they engaged in another business. That, and reductions in royalty payments.
The main "subsidy" that was being proposed to promote coal to liquids was actually a 51 cents per gallon (the same as for ethanol) tax credit.
But if you don't believe me, how about the World Trade Organization (WTO)? The WTO's definition of a subsidy, as set out in its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, states the following:
"1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
... (ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits);" ... [My emphasis]
Gee, there it is, "tax credit". I wonder why?
Tax credits are a way to reduce government revenue otherwise due. If you normally pay $10,000 a year in taxes, but the government says, "if you produce liquids from coal, you can reduce that tax bill by 51 cents for every gallon you produce", it may have different implications for the budget process, but from your standpoint as a producer it differs little a situation in which the government were simply to pay you a bounty of 51 cents for every gallon you produce.
The difference is mainly optical. Thanks to people like you, Artreyger, politicians have figured out that John Q. Public pays less attention when a subsidy is provided through the tax code than through a more-transparent budget. But the Government knows better, which is why it requires various bodies, such as the Joint Committee on Taxation to produce periodic estimates of the value of these tax expenditures.
You write, "Incentives are supposed to start a program, which otherwise might not be attractive due to initial starting costs." Again, that begs the question of whether the particular program (or industry) should take priority over other programs or industries. What I and others have been arguing here is that while some headline subsidies (worth just under $400 million dollars) may have been allocated to support a half-dozen demonstration cellulosic ethanol plants, the big bucks -- TAX CREDITS FOR ETHANOL, ANY ETHANOL, EVEN CORN ETHANOL PRODUCED IN PLANTS FUELED BY COAL -- continue to flow, are where the real action is, worth billions of dollars a year and are set (especially assuming current proposals in Congress to extend them) to grow to double-digit billions a year in the not-too-distant future.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:36 pm
21 Jun 2007
Moreover, rare is the tax code subsidy that has an actual cap---I think the subsidy for the Prius did (only so many per year), but most are wide open to all comers, so we really don't know what the cost will be. Sometimes a subsidy is even sweeter than people realize, and it's not until later that you find out that your state has blown a wad that it didn't plan to because it crafted a tax subsidy that it didn't intend.
Also, according to Jeremy above, these subsidies sunset at a certain level of production. Nice trick. This means that, instead of an actual sunset (i.e., a date), the subsidy can continue FOREVER. Once production starts to approach the threshold, producers will back off, keeping the gravy train running another year. The plant owners aren't stupid -- which one of them is going to build a plant that would cause the state to reach the production threshold? I'd be seriously worried about "accidents" during construction if I were to start building a plant that threatened to cause the state to overshoot the threshold and break everyone's rice bowl.
And, of course, there's just the plain sweet invisibility of a tax subsidy as opposed to an honest appropriation. An appropriation has to be passed again and again and again as part of the budget; you get a tax subsidy through and boom, you're set forever. The tax code never changes unless the Legislature changes it, and it doesn't have to be readopted year after year.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:31 pm
21 Jun 2007
These "sunset" provisions require Congress to make explicit choices about extending the tax benefits. While sunset would appear to promote better budgetary control of tax expenditures, that is not always the case. In some instances, including an expiration date for a provision creates the illusion that its long-term costs are lower than those of permanent provisions, when in fact the provision is so popular that Congress will never allow it to end.
...
[S]pecific design aspects of a proposal matter much more than whether recipients claim benefits when they file a tax return with the IRS or receive a check from a program agency. These specific design questions include whether it is a matching subsidy or direct grant, whether or not there are budgetary ceilings and expiration dates, the criteria for eligibility of beneficiaries and requirements for certifying eligibility. Nonetheless, on administrative grounds, there may be reasons for preferring either a tax incentive or a direct spending program.
We have seen that in the case of the current set of federal tax credits for biofuels (and the tariff on imported ethanol): once in place, they tend to be renewed ... again and again and again.
If people think that tax credits are cost-free, then why not create tax credits for everybody, and for everything? I mean, why are we denying ourselves a delicious free lunch?
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:37 pm
21 Jun 2007
Don't tax you,
Don't tax me,
Tax that fellow
Behind the tree.
Verse 2 through 2^Nth power (as N tends to infinity) same as the first.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:02 pm
21 Jun 2007
The most powerful force in the human part of the universe? Confusion.
Even some dedicated Gristmill readers/writers still do not grok the problems with guzzling gas made with fuel farming. And try to confuse this simple issue once again.
That is the unbelievable power of confusion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:01 am
22 Jun 2007
Clearly, I was being facetious when I said that about tax breaks. I was just kidding because I want to get off Ron's subsidy horse. But if you were king, Ron or JMG (not amazin), and you had to make an immediate decision about our energy sector, what would you do? And where would you get the liquid fuel? Cause the hundred million plus cars on the roadway, they ain't leaving any time soon.
Plus, I like how you both skirted the issue of $500/ton (ooooh) as going strictly to sequestration, instead of a number of positive outcomes.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:55 am
22 Jun 2007
Sure there are lots of claims about what great things biofuels will do, and all of them (at least as regards first-generation biofuels, with the exception of biodiesel made from used cooking oil, and perhaps tallow) -- air pollution benefits, regional and rural-employment benefits, national-security benefits -- have been and continue to be challenged. The debate rages on.
Yes, biofuels have raised crop prices, which has increased the income of many farmers. But it has cut into the costs of others, not only livestock farmers, through pressure on land prices and prices of key inputs, such as fertilizer. In short, there are winners and losers.
Among the losers are other crops competing for land with corn. For example, in Minnesota:
Hmong farmers, who immigrated to the U.S. after the Vietnam War, grow vegetables using organic and biodynamic techniques on rented land in Minnesota. With the ethanol boom driving up demand for corn, the landowners are pushing the Hmong out, even though their farms are three times more profitable than a typical Minnesota farm.
If it were only high oil prices that were driving the biofuels boom, I think that many of us would feel sorry for those affected by such trends, but otherwise accept it and look for ways to minimize any collateral damage. The point is that the phenomenal growth in the industry -- and therefore all the consequences that flow from it -- are largely the result of government policy, not market forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that you don't put much truck in market forces. Else the clear answer would have occurred to you already: raise taxes on fossil-derived transport fuels. And help cities plan for alternative means of getting around (like better sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and public transport).
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:35 am
22 Jun 2007
I recently put up a post about what I'd do if I were Climate Change Czar, and I invited others to contribute to the list; sorry to say it didn't get much interest.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/11/224214/140
However, the list from that post (edited to delete those not relevant to liquid fuels) responds to your query I think:
Here's a small handful of mine, in random order (i.e., not ranked by priority), just to get you started:
* government managers have to start justifying travel from a carbon perspective, not just a cost perspective;
* more teens have working bikes than cell phones; all schools teach bike safety and repair;
* "design for bikability" required on all public ways
* schools charge students through the nose for automobile parking (where parking is provided at all);
* all urban mass transit is free; interurban rail and bus systems kept at low cost;
* "free" parking for cars is outlawed; all registered autos to have a smart chip that talks to the "parking meter" chip on the curb or in the parking lot and reduces your parking balance (stored on the chip) automatically; the rates can be set according to time of day and length of stay (where extended parking is undesired);
* minimum passenger percentage for jet flights: flights not allowed to take off unless at least 95% of the seats are filled with regular, pre-ticketed flyers;
* states require insurance companies to offer vehicle insurance by-the-mile (where the state doesn't adopt pay-at-the-pump entirely, per Andrew Tobias)
A couple other other ideas I saw recently that I would support:
* 55 mph top speed limit
* Make gas stations offer to check and inflate tires to the proper pressure, and check air filters. Require commercial parking operators to offer the same (so that tires can be checked cold).
As for the $500 per ton CO2 reduced, if I understand your position (and I'm not sure I do), it's that the fact that reducing CO2 emissions through biofuels costs $500 per ton is not a negative for biofuels, because biofuels are an energy source. (And please correct me if I have mischaracterized what you are saying).
If I have the question right, then the answer is simply that what Ron's study shows is that whether your priority is reducing supply-demand mismatch for liquid fuels or dealing with climate problems, biofuels are not nearly as good as the alternatives, particularly the efficiency alternative. Using less is the cheapest thing to do and reduces greenhouse gas emissions the most, while reducing pressure on supplies the most. What's so hard to understand about that?
US energy demand is like a blast furnace in a steel mill. Biofuels are like trying to power that blast furnace by making school children feed it with hand-carried buckets of coal (since that is the power source, ultimately, of most of the energy content in biofuels made today) or diesel oil (in the always-just-around-the-corner cellulosic ethanol world).
The only way to get ahead of either problem (peak oil or climate disruption) is to use lots less energy, and use the rest far, far more efficiently.
Eliminating biofuels subsidies and redirecting the money into the kinds of things suggested above would do more for all concerned.
As Roberts put it, if you didn't start with biofuels as the goal, what would make you get there? (Answer: nothing.)
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:49 am
22 Jun 2007
The irony is, with the kind of massive public money we're talking about shoveling to biofuels and liquid coal, we could get those cars off the road. We could buy every one of them, scrap them, and replace them with plug-in hybrids! If that strikes you as an absurd solution, well, that just goes to show how absurd the level of subsidies under discussion are.
grist.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:26 am
22 Jun 2007
Just like the tobacco lobby fought for decades to defeat one simple idea (cigarettes kill), the auto gang (a HUGE cross-sector complex that includes the oil industry, the manufacturing sector, the highway (concrete/asphalt) lobby, the sprawlbuilders lobby) continues to fight for the primacy of one key idea (meme):
Cars aren't going anywhere. They are central to our culture and we cannot give them up.
The auto gang are like the Japanese on Iwo Jima on this point. They know that, when enough people realize that we can have a pretty darn nice country, with a lot better health, wealth, and environment without personal cars, things are going to change in a real hurry.
So their job is to enforce the meme at all costs (as long as those costs are shifted to others).
Therefore, they equate cars with "freedom" and "independence," "virility" and "fun" and all the other positive things (just like cigarettes were sold on every one of those same traits). They do everything possible to keep the true costs of car culture from becoming widely understood; they work tirelessly to train kids in the ways of car culture and to make auto-free living seem like a weird and undesirable state. They prey on the poor, who bankrupt themselves to stay in the car culture, just like the people smoking through their tracheotomy holes.
Flex-fuel vehicles, hybrid electrics, etc. are all just the auto gang's version of the "low tar cigarette" -- a way to keep the junkie on the line.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:51 am
22 Jun 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:53 am
22 Jun 2007
We don't have to keep using cars.
Practically speaking, we have to accept cars for the foreseeable future, but we can insure they use much less oil.
We have to accept cars, and we have to keep running them primarily on liquid fuel.
There's an interesting debate to be had between #1 and #2. But #3 just makes no goddam sense at all. Why use liquid fuels as some kind of non-negotiable starting point?
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:01 am
22 Jun 2007
As far as #1 is concerned, my position is that it should always be preceded by a fairly large number, like "in 20 years" (or 30, or 40) we should have a train-centered society -- which also sounds better than "carless",it's pushing the alternative instead of concentrating on negating the current option.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:18 am
22 Jun 2007
When I bought a car our lives improved by orders of magnitude. Getting somewhere could take half a day by bus now takes a hour or so. My wife is going to by a second car as her job requires her to travel around town. Again with the buses that would mean spending 3 hours or so every day in buses.
You can say what you want. I like my car. It has made my life a lot better. No propaganda required from the car lobby.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:27 am
22 Jun 2007
Thing is, when we make the infrastructure and urban planning and land use changes necessary, people will naturally migrate out of their cars. No moral suasion will be required. Until then, moral suasion just bugs people.
Switching out present-day cars for plug-in hybrids, however, is a marked and immediate increase in quality of life, no matter the other circumstances. That seems like the low-hanging fruit, even as we work in parallel to reduce the need for cars.
grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:27 am
22 Jun 2007
You all got that? Isaiah 2.4:
<<
And he [the Lord, aka Yahweh] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
>>
Not one of the favorite texts of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their neo-con entourage. Unknown if W. himself ever stumbled upon it while doing his Bible-roulette games.
Anyway, I am definitely on Jon's side, in supporting car-to-train re-adaptation (CTT).
But JMG is right about the deep-rootedness of the private car in our culture and indeed in our sense of identity and self-worth.
And Hollywood has a great responsibility in that. TV too. Where does it start? James Dean? Segueing into "Route 66"?
Iconically, it ought to have ended with "Thelma and Louise": car as platform for a rape, car as suicide instrument. But I guess not; that was just a chick-flick. : (
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:42 am
22 Jun 2007
The bus system in many places (not all, such as SF or NYC), were the miserable systems that GM et al. put in place after they bought the trolley systems and ripped them up. I have not owned a car in 20 odd years, but I lived in NYC and now downtown Evanston, where I can walk. Even so, if we could magically not be so lazy and get our drivers licenses renewed (yes, we let them lapse) we would do it, because this society is simply not set up to be completely car-free.
So, push for more light rail -- if salt lake city likes it, what's not to like -- push for more transit-oriented development, with the argument that life will be better, more pleasant, with lots of rail and walkable neighborhoods. Even Al Gore, in his recent rolling stone interview, used the example of being stuck in traffic for hours as an example where a emissions-reduced world would be superior to the current one.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:44 am
22 Jun 2007
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:55 am
22 Jun 2007
More people in cities is a good idea. Less travel and rail makes more sense.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:00 am
22 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:06 am
22 Jun 2007
There are no plug-in hybrids. Creating a product that satisfies a demanding and complex market is not simple.
Americans base their car-buying decisions on a broad array of triaged factors. The fuel-economy factor is far peripheral in most car-buyers' triage geometrics. The single-most important reason for that is that liquid-fuel is available for virtually-free throughout the United States.
A rise in the general longitudinal price of liquid-fuel would change that. One important factor in terms of liquid-fuel price is the price of oil futures. Another important factor is fuel-tax level. To strengthen the former factor, a government might reduce futures-trading taxes -- perhaps even to the point of subsidizing futures-trading. As for the potential helpfulness of the latter strategy, it might be profitable to keep in mind that futures-trading involves significant investments in terms of time (for research and analysis), costs-of-capital, and transaction-costs. The maximum benefit of futures-trading to society might be realized if these costs were minimized by the benefitting society.
Currently, long-term capital-gains are taxed at 15%.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
One factor that affects the perception of liquid-fuel cost is the ratio of driving's fixed-costs to liquid-fuel costs. One fixed-cost that might easily be transformed -- and overall reduced in the process -- to a variable-cost is car-insurance. I have mentioned this before. So have others:
gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/8/31/13446/5810
But a pay-as-you-drive car insurance system (or PAYD for short) would automatically create incentives to drive less. PAYD would effectively double the marginal cost of driving a mile, which would curtail driving as much as a gas tax of $2 per gallon
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:12 am
22 Jun 2007
Q: Why would we make any of those changes to obviate cars before we're committed to getting rid of car culture?
A: We wouldn't. And we won't.
Technologic niches work just like ecological ones--the toys don't share any better than species do.
Look at all the effort being expended to maintain car culture: we're willing to fight wars to do it, we're willing to starve people to do it, we're willing to destroy climate stability to do it, to pave over fertile land, to mine the last few inches of topsoil, etc.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:24 am
22 Jun 2007
So, what are these things called "cars" that you are all talking about?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:28 am
22 Jun 2007
Recharge plug-in and electric cars with solar/wind power, and/or NW hydro.
The car does not have to die, just make it stop smoking so much fuel.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:35 am
22 Jun 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:38 am
22 Jun 2007
Just a couple questions so I can plan ahead:
(1) How long will my current 30-mile commute be via horse? Via horse and buggy?
(2) How expensive is it to care for a horse vs. an automobile?
(3) How much pasture is required for each horse if I want him or her to get some fresh air, sunshine, and quality forage?
(I'm actually replacing my crown vetch -- see alien plant thread -- with a mix of pasture grass. This was going to be a temporary measure, but I could skip the native plants if it will reduce America's dependence on fossil fuel and give me an excuse for caring for another animal.)
(4) What will urban planners have to start thinking about in order to facilitate the transition?
Forward!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:44 am
22 Jun 2007
Why would there not be oil at a decent price forever?
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:45 am
22 Jun 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:46 am
22 Jun 2007
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:56 am
22 Jun 2007
I just hope other people try different methods, because I don't hold out a lot of hope for that one.
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:04 am
22 Jun 2007
I cannot earn a living via telecommuting, consulting, blogging, or writing novels. I have to go somewhere to work. I might be able to grow enough food for my family, but there would be no way to pay for heat, electricity, a photovoltaic system, healthcare, clothing, fabric, books, tools, property taxes, telephone, et cetera.
We've already purchased -- and must pay back the loan for -- the house. If I return to an urban area, I would have to sell the house. I would probably have to sell it to someone just like me, so I might as well live there. At least I'm taking care of the land.
If there is a massive migration from rural areas to urban areas because of the rising cost of transportation, I won't be able to sell the house. There wll be no market for houses in rural areas. I would have to declare bankruptcy and have no means of starting a new life in an urban area.
So... the commute is non-negotiable. I have to make it work. Millions of American have to make it work. Whine all you want. But unless there is a state or federal program to buy houses, raze them, and replace them with natural areas, commuters are here to stay. The alternative, in my opinion, is a landscape dominated by the wealthy who can afford energy and littered with abandoned homes the wealthy are not interested in living in.
By the way... the remarks regarding horses... I'm serious.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:09 am
22 Jun 2007
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:29 am
22 Jun 2007
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/temporary_continua ...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:30 am
22 Jun 2007
you also said
unless there is a state or federal program to buy houses, raze them, and replace them with natural areas
I actually thought of this in my utopian musings, and indeed it may be necessary. As I stated a few comments ago, I would preface any move to a car-free society as "in 30 years" or so. The problem with that strategy is that a gazillion people have their life savings invested in their house, and that is a long-term consideration people will act on, so even a 30-year time frame might not be good enough -- which is why we would have to include a program of the feds buying you out if you still had something there, so don't worry, you won't get screwed!
Parenthetically, Kunstler and even more so, many peak oilers think everyone will just wind up eating doo-doo, so my proposal is actually less wild than many.
I once heard Barney Frank on Bill Maher basically say that people bought their homes on the assumption that they could make a 45-minute commute, and implied that gas prices need to be kept at the appropriate level. So if someone on the "left" is defending Americans god-given right to liquid fuels, you can just imagine what the other politicians are feeling -- and if suburban commuting becomes unsustainable, the right will accuse the left of being behind a conspiracy to destroy the suburbs.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:32 am
22 Jun 2007
The automobile was adopted as a solution to the environmental, health, and animal-abuse problems of horse-based transport.
google.com/search?q=automobile+horse+abuse+pollution
enviroliteracy.org/article.php/578.html
The most severe problem was that caused by horses defecating and urinating in the streets, but dead animals and noise pollution also produced serious annoyances and even health problems. The normal city horse produced between fifteen and thirty-five pounds of manure a day and about a quart of urine, usually distributed along the course of its route or deposited in the stable. While cities made sporadic attempts to keep the streets clean, the manure was everywhere, along the roadway, heaped in piles or next to stables, or ground up by the traffic and blown about by the wind. In 1818, in an attempt to control the manure nuisance, the New York City Council required that those who gathered and hauled manure, so-called "dirt carting," to be licensed, also restricting aliens to this type of carting activity. Thousands of loads of manure were gathered on special "manure-yards" to undergo a process of "rotting," and "gangs" of men were employed to overturn the manure and to expose it to weathering. In 1866, the Citizen's Association Report on the Sanitary Condition of the City observed that, "The stench arising from these accumulations of filth is intolerable."
[...]
Increasingly [...] it became obvious that the most effective way to eliminate the "typhoid fly" [...] was to eliminate the horse.
The ASPCA was created as a reaction to the urban-horse-abuse problem:
Other issues arose. The ASPCA was founded in 1866, and almost all cities soon had humane societies with police powers, which kept a close eye on street railways. The latter, however, found ways to manipulate these groups, for example by having officials serve on their boards and getting them to lobby for municipal regulations which required cars to stop only at corners, instead of wherever flagged down. This made the horses' lives easier, since fewer stops meant less wear and tear on their legs, and also increased route speed. Street railway owners also hoped that these societies would restrain driver cruelty, since they feared that their employees would damage their stock. However, the actions of such organisations were hardly predictable.
Gradually well kept statistics demonstrated that horses were not as safe as people had once thought; for example, per vehicle, horse transport killed more people than internal combustion engine travel would do later. (Machines do not bite or kick, or take fright at pieces of flying paper.)
Additionally, horses walk about 4 MPH.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait
Even a rudimentary and inexpensive (read: equipped with minimal batteries) converted-electric-car could travel a long way at 4 MPH (electric cars are more-efficient the slower they travel). A simple electric-bicycle, equipped with a single-wheel BOB trailer with a lead-acid deep-cycle battery in it, might suffice.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:37 am
22 Jun 2007
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:56 am
22 Jun 2007
What I believe, as I wrote, was that we have been sold a dysfunctional system and we pay the price for it every single day, in hundreds of ways, from our taxes to our air quality, to our loss of species diversity, to the tens of thousands of people who die every year from automobility, not to mention the pedestrians and bicyclists killed by cars. I know of very few people who argue in favor of any of these things, which would truly be morally reprehensible.
DDT and leaded gasoline were once both popular and completely accepted uses of technology. That changed because people were willing to actually look at the evidence of the harm they caused and talk about it, despite a fierce rebuttal from the industries involved. The personal automobile is quite similar in my view.
Like you, I hope that others find more effective ways to get people to rethink cars; if you have suggestions for that, I'm all ears.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:57 am
22 Jun 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:51 am
22 Jun 2007
Confusion reigns, in this rhetorical playground. But mother earth is not confused. A 300+ mph tornado indicates that quite forcefully.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:22 pm
22 Jun 2007
As for himself, it was definitely the love that I knew was always there: sure, I saw him across a crowded room, and I was like a brontosaur-distance away, but I knew, I just knew -- you know how you know about these things? -- I just knew, when he was looking up at my balcony, in my direction, I felt it, he was looking right at me! Oh God, I could have died! Right there, in front of all those people from Long Island!!
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:39 pm
22 Jun 2007
I think "TINA" does sum up the attitude of 90% of the country, including the Administration (OK, give them 99.9%) and Congress. The meme is with us. Let me quote from the CNN report on the Energy Bill:
The Senate easily brushed aside concerns raised in some quarters that ethanol- related demand for corn could translate into higher food prices for consumers and higher feed prices for livestock producers. Proposals to rescind a tariff on ethanol imports and to reduce the ethanol production mandate if the Agriculture Department determined there was a corn shortage were both turned back during debate. [My emphasis]
There you have it in a nutshell. The Senate has decided: We must continue to protect the U.S. (corn-dominated) ethanol industry from foreign competition, thus assuring that corn production in the country is ramped up to the max. [Anybody who thinks corn -- whether it be only the kernels or the whole plant -- won't still be the dominant feedstock for ethanol in the U.S. ten years from now needs to read up on the topic.]
Even in the event of a shortage in corn supply -- e.g., as a result of drought or pestilence -- fuel for cars will take priority, because the level of consumption we have determined is sacrosanct. There is no alternative!
I ask again: is that a moral position?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:19 pm
22 Jun 2007
_
California consumes about 1 billion gallons of ethanol.
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/147143.html
Soon to be bumped up about 67%.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/groundwork_begu.h ...
According to this, we're looking at something like 2700 gallons of irrigation water for 1 gallon of ethanol.
http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/user/The%20Many%20 ...
One Acre-Foot of water is 325 851.427 gallons of water
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q= ...
2700 billion gallons, is about 43 million acre-feet of water a year.
California consumes 42.6 million acre-feet of water a year total.
http://energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/water.html
Anyone want to guess why California doesn't grow their own Ethanol?
_
Although this one this one said 8,360 gallons per ethanol gallon.
http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/user/The%20Many%20 ...
Not sure which one is correct.
But I do know it's not the 3.5 - 6 gallons of process-water they keep talking about.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/bloomberg/sxmuk.ph ...
This report figures 1000-4000 gallons per gallon of biofuel is the average.
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1311
So I dunno.
_
Anyone getting thirsty?
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:57 pm
22 Jun 2007
HOW THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT ECO ALERNATIVES
NEW SCIENTIST - Asked in April to name the world's biggest environmental problem, a third of Americans cited global warming - double the figure from just a year before. Air pollution trailed a distant second at 13 per cent.
The same poll, conducted by The Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University in California, found that 7 out of 10 Americans want the federal government to take more action on global warming. But what form should that action take? And does support for action hold firm if people understand that it may hurt them financially?
To find out, we joined forces with the Stanford polling team, led by political psychologist Jon Krosnick, and Resources for the Future, an environment and energy think tank in Washington DC.
The results of our poll challenge some common preconceptions. They show clearly that policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard. Americans turn out to be suspicious of policies that use market forces to help bring down emissions, and are much more likely to support prescriptive regulations that tell companies exactly how they must achieve cuts. What's more, given the probable costs, action seems more likely to win public support if it targets electricity generation rather than private vehicles. . . .
We investigated three ways of reducing greenhouse pollution. First, the government could impose regulations known as "standards" or "mandates" telling companies exactly what emissions-reducing measures they must put in place. Second, it could levy taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. And third, the government could set up a "cap-and-trade" scheme, requiring emissions cuts but allowing companies to trade in permits to emit greenhouse gases. . . .
One striking result was that, at the costs we quoted, the US public has a clear preference for action in the electricity sector rather than vehicle fuel. Even the least popular electricity policy - cap-and-trade - won more support at all three prices than the most popular vehicle fuel policy. . .
The enthusiasm for standards over both emissions taxes and cap-and-trade was perhaps the most striking result of the poll. In both the fuel and electricity sectors, standards were significantly more popular than the other two options.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426 ...
So no surprise that people want corn ethanol--or any other liquid that they think will keep them rolling along.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:08 pm
22 Jun 2007
Subsidies change corporate policy and consumer preference. Taxes will not.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:30 pm
22 Jun 2007
The fact that taxes get passed is nothing new nor unique. The ultimate incidence of most taxes differs from their initial incidence. Let's look at it another way: do you think gasoline consumption would remain unchanged if you REMOVED all the current federal and state excise taxes, which when combined average around 42¢/gal?
Can you give a better explanation why drivers in France and the UK get 50% better gas mileage than in the USA apart from the fact that the gasoline taxes in those countries are so much higher?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
23 Jun 2007
Will that consumer then say, "ah ha!, now that my bill went up, buying a solar system will pay back much more quickly. I'm going to get one"?
Not likely, instead they will realize that with the higher bill due to the new tax they need to cut corners even further to keep the power on. not lay out more money for a solar system.
they will blame the new tax and the politicians who implemented it. What will the tax dollars raised go for? For wind and solar or for more oil wars? more oil wars.
With a shift of subsidies from fossil fuels to solar and wind, the consumer will realize that solar system is a great investment with a shorter payback period.
Taxpayers rightly distrust what this new american dictatorship might do with any money from new taxes. War first, then tax breaks for the rich, then boondoggles like fuel farming.
Reform would be to divert monies misspent to incentives for beleaguered families trying to pay their energy bills to go with renewables. A plugin car that runs on 60 cent equivalent per gallon of gas electricty, or even better from your own home solar system.
That's what real people want. Not a higher power bill with the carbon tax going to oil war or paying halliburton to pretend to rebuild Iraq.
Gitmo detainees have full health coverage. 911 first responders had to go to Cuba with Micheal Moore to get health coverage, and now they face a 65k fine each for traveling to cuba. This administration is prosecuting them.
But rove keeps his job and prospers.
Voters will never trust raising taxes to get reform. they want reform by taking money wasted now and using it wisely. on rebates directly to them for investing in solar, wind, plugin cars, and conservation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:22 am
23 Jun 2007
... that American voters want the government to decide how to spend their money even more than European voters do?
To oppose higher taxes on transport fuel (you seem to be talking mainly about electricity) because the money might be misspent is silly. Most people proposing such taxes call for tax neutrality -- i.e., cutting taxes elsewhere so that the total tax burden remains unchanged, and even using some of the revenues to compensate low-income people hurt by the higher taxes.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
23 Jun 2007
US automakers are primarily oil salesmen. All other considerations are secondary. look at the lobbying against the puny move to raise CAFE standards to 35mpg. Mounted by automakers?
Why? Automakers would produce the 200+ mpg Volt voluntarily. that would beat the world with consumer demand everywhere.
No way, these boardrooms of US auto companies are full of oil men.
They are clearly making money from oil, not cars. cars are the loss leader. Buy the gas guzzler from Detroit (that the auto company loses money on)and they get you later at the gas pump. So it goes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:30 am
23 Jun 2007
Yes.
google.com/search?q=california+%22electricity+prices%22+solar+payback
33,200 hits.
Raising the price of electricity allows the individual consumer to determine the most competitive solution. Subsidies for specific solutions only allow for those chosen by political committee -- and those are notoriously inferior solutions. What you are essentially talking about, Amazingdrx, is a centralized planned-economy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:31 am
23 Jun 2007
Incentivise small business to build out solar, wind, and geothermal heating/cooling. incentivize a boom in renewable distributed power generation and storage and plgin vehicles.
Don't punish the wicked carbon demon by taxing consumers then spending the taxes on more oil wars to get more carbon. Left, right, or middle, voters will never trust the government to raise taxes then spend the money wisely.
Instead stop the waste of tax dollars on adventures like Iraq, and give it out in incentives to homeowners and small business.
Remember the 9 billion in 100 dollar bills that dissappeared into Iraq on C-130s? They loaded up the loot with forklift trucks. Taxpayers who vote remember. No new taxes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:39 am
23 Jun 2007
You want to raise taxes and have socialist government owned nukes like socialist France does.
I want a marketplace that chooese the best renewable technology incentivized with subsidies for systems that save energy and produce clean, carbon free energy. Each consumer buying wisely, helped out by subsidies diverted from big corporate thieves like exxon mob and halliburton.
You want huge socialist nuclear plants where the government uses tax dollars to foot 80% of the corporate bill.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:40 am
23 Jun 2007
You are indeed talking about socialism. Those incentives are all for specific solutions picked for the consumer by political committees. That is socialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy#Planned_economies_and_socialism
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:44 am
23 Jun 2007
Invested capital currently favors subsidized technologies like ethanol, pv, wind.
And then there's coal, oil, gas and nuclear subsidies.
The better return on investment comes from end-use energy efficiency and conservation, best supported via carbon taxes shifted from other taxes, not a new tax.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
23 Jun 2007
Maybe that whiff of reality would be more helpfull to you. Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
23 Jun 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:12 am
23 Jun 2007
After words, Defense Sec. Perry was on his knees with Leonid Kuchma's rep watering sunflower seeds on the subsequent Ukrainian burial site.
The connotation of sunflower is nuclear disarmament.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:23 am
23 Jun 2007
That better mileage in europe is due to boardroom policy. Driven by automakers instead of oil salesmen. Taxes, schmaxes. Taxes have merely reduced the numbers of cars and drivers, only the wealthy can afford to drive.
You don't know what the ... you're talking about. Yes, car ownership in Europe is less than in the USA, but not that much less. They are certainly not owned only by the wealthy. People just buy smaller, more-efficient cars. More cars here are diesel, and most cars are sold with manual transmissions rather than automatic transmissions as in the 'States.
Don't punish the wicked carbon demon by taxing consumers then spending the taxes on more oil wars to get more carbon. Left, right, or middle, voters will never trust the government to raise taxes then spend the money wisely.
I guess you didn't read what I said. Almost all serious calls for carbon taxes are made in the context of tax neutrality: raise taxes in one area; decrease them elsewhere (e.g., on labor). Charging a carbon tax does not automatically mean giving the government more money to spend.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:27 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:23 am
23 Jun 2007
Are you meaning to suggest cutting the military budget to zero?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:31 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:41 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:46 am
23 Jun 2007
Unlike civilian electricity, those are meant to be deadly.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:34 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:17 am
23 Jun 2007
What was your take on the Gerardo Sandoval incident?
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190867,00.html
COLMES: Should we not have a military?
SANDOVAL: I don't think we should have a military.
COLMES: We shouldn't have a military?
COLMES: Hold on. The United States should not have a military?
SANDOVAL: Well, what good has it done us in the last five years? That's right. What good has it done us in the last five years?
HANNITY: Good grief.
COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.
SANDOVAL: You know, if we took the billions that we're spending in Iraq right now and we spent it on schools...
COLMES: I just want you to repeat that: The United States should not have a military?
SANDOVAL: That's correct.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:38 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:42 am
23 Jun 2007
What is it that you do not understand?
Jon Rynn wrote: I explicitly said $100 billion for a military. That would probably still be the world's biggest
China spent $386 billion in 2006 on its military. (The CIA Factbook says that China's GPD-PPP is $10.17 trillion, and that its military-expenditure as percent of GDP is 3.8%. That works out to $0.38646 trillion, or $386.46 billion.)
Jon Rynn wrote: It's mostly a fat piece of pork just waiting to be used for something constructive.
If no party invades while the US has a $0.5 trillion military budget, one cannot say that some party would have invaded.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You would not consider a Venezuela-Bolivia-Cuba-Nicaragua-Iran military coalition a credible invasion-threat?
google.com/search?q=venezuela+bolivia+military
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:56 am
23 Jun 2007
I didn't even check the everyone-the-administration-gangs-up-on-us, you've got to be kidding. Anyway, we have so much equipment that just keeping it in operating condition and having a plan to rev it back up would be all you would need even if the entire planet ganged up on us.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:45 pm
23 Jun 2007
Why do european auto makers build smaller, higher mileage cars? Because they are not in the oil business. US automakers are in the oil business. their boards are virtually identical in car mileage policy to the boards of big oil corporations. They fight higher mileage standards with bribery on a monumental scale.
You have to remember just how far from reality carbon taxers and nukers are to appreciate my bluntness. They call you a socialist, you call them a commie.
When training a mule one needs to first hit it between the eyes with a 2 x 4 to get it's attention. there never was a more mule like human than buddy or sunny.
Now sunny has unlinked stories about single handedly stopping Clinton from bringing on nuclear armageddon? We get to listen to clinton haters here now with unverifiable crazy stories. Gee I hope rush comes by too.
"Almost all serious calls for carbon taxes are made in the context of tax neutrality"
Perhaps you are not familiar with the version of the US government that dissappeared 9 billion dollars in 100 dollar bills into Iraq on C-130 transport planes.
Forget about voters trusting these so-called "serious calls". Voters in the USA no longer trust any sort of promises to spend raised taxes wisely, period.
First take the money wasted on subsidies to big oil, coal, nuclear, and fuel farming away. Use that money to subsidize energy sources that reduce carbon. Don't ask for more taxes while wasting the taxes already collected now on Iraq and halliburton.
Maybe voters would then trust the government to raise their taxes? But I doubt it even then.
Zero trust Ron. Is that getting through to you. Zero Ron. Lied into war over oil, 100s of billions wasted. Zero. Got it yet?
No new taxes Ron. Got it?
Not yet huh? didn't think so. Hehehey.
Think about what 9 billion in 100s looks like being loaded on a c-130 with forklifts. think long and hard.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:16 pm
23 Jun 2007
In any case, Dr. X, you keep talking about subsidizing this or that. Whence comes the money to pay for those subsidies? Taxes, and currently mostly taxes on the income of individuals and corporations.
As for Europe, when the current fleet of new vehicles already get such good gas mileage, why would subsidizing the production and purchase of plug-in hybrids be the best use of revenues from its gasoline and diesel taxes? In any case, revenues from fuel taxes (in most European countries) are not earmarked: they go into general revenues (as they should). So governments have to decide weigh up all kinds of priorities when spending. In Paris, the government is spending quite a bit of money on increasing its bicycle-path network (and fleet of public bicycles), and building new tram lines. At the national level, the French government continues to extend its TGV (bullet-train) network. The point is, these transport options are more viable precisely because the alternative -- the private motor car -- is expensive (compared with the USA), because fuel taxes are so much higher.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:53 pm
23 Jun 2007
Thats why one of the best things they can do is give out rebate subsidies based on product performance.
Makes it easier for new technologies to sell.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:54 pm
23 Jun 2007
Usually thats a matter of who you know, not what you can do.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:33 pm
23 Jun 2007
Half the taxes collected now go down the corpoRAT hole. To the masters of war.
Divert that huge amount to subsidies for renewable distributed generation and storage and conservation first. How about some healthcare too?
When that is acomplished, maybe the taxpaying voters will ok new taxes. But not before. A wrecked economy with no secure jobs, outsourcing subsidized with tax breaks.
Record medical bankruptcies. GM spends as much for healthcare as it does for steel. Meanwhile every other automaker in the world avoids that huge cost with national healthcare.
How can US companies compete? Only by outsourcing every job that has health benefits. This is wholesale thievery on a vast scale by this government run on bribery.
Please try to understand the plight of families dependant on jobs that may dissapear to india or china next week. Who now face unprecedented inflation in energy and food.
When the mortgage payment is late the bankers and real estate weasels are salivating over their huge profits from foreclosure. The hospital corporation cashing in on terminal illness.
Raise taxes? Not bloody likely.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:45 pm
23 Jun 2007
Who picked the jeep design? Have you ever driven a WW2 era jeep? Ever fixed one? I have. I wish I owned one right now.
Ever driven a new jeep? Ever tried to fix one? The product of the "free" market. The "free" market that gives a 100k tax break subsidy for small businesses like dentists to buy a jeep? 'Nuff said.
Picking carbon eliminating techology is a matter of science. Give a dollar amount of subsidy per carbon avoided. How were you all planning on calculating your carbon tax? A dollar amount per carbon emitted.
Let consumers decide on which devices to invest in. There's your free market, that's a free market.
In case no one has noticed this is a very serious crisis we have here. No time to fiddle while the earth burns. Drought and fire alone are very alarming. Whole regions are at risk.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:46 pm
23 Jun 2007
Otherwise, I agree that there are lots of wasteful things that governments could, should stop spending money on, which could release funds to be spent on areas that probably merit higher levels of spending.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:11 am
24 Jun 2007
How would you subsidize turning off a lightbulb, using firewood, using a clothsline, carpools, staying home, turning down the thermostat, turning off the air conditioner, walking, biking, taking a short shower,,,?
Shifting taxes to carbon would be easy. The unemployed poor will still be protected.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:58 am
24 Jun 2007
How would you subsidize turning off a lightbulb, using firewood, using a clothesline, carpools, staying home, turning down the thermostat, turning off the air conditioner, walking, biking, taking a short shower ... ?
I'm going to suggest to my colleagues that we post your quote on our website.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:59 am
24 Jun 2007
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html
5) Bullying - This behavior is especially dangerous. Does this person use overt or subtle threats to get his way? A bully uses the threat of violence more than actual violence.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:11 am
24 Jun 2007
I very much like Gerardo Sandoval's interview on Fox News, which Nucbuddy supplied a piece of. That is a great moment in US politics, when these Republican Instruments have the air sucked out of their lungs, when someone very reasonably suggests that the Department of Defense should have its budget reduced to Zero.
And of course Jon Rynn, my fellow New Yorker, has written more and more admirable things.
Unfortunately, this thread has got rather too long to be practical. Perhaps that is a function of the genius of yet another friend of ours, JMG.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:34 am
24 Jun 2007
And please let's distinguish between suburbs and exurbs. Many of our suburbs, defined as residential monoculture peripheral to and within the urban services boundary of a community (water, sewer, etc.), may be redeemable with retrofit infrastructure upgrades such as improved public transportation and locally-scaled infill redevelopment for commerce, education and employment. Exurbs - the mini-ranches and large-lot rural subdivisions - are going to be highly problematic for all but the wealthy and those who can gain a living without leaving home.
DR's plaint about the minivan struck a chord: I have numerous friends younger than I who run themselves ragged ferrying their kids hither and yon to all of their widely dispersed engagements, only to find themselves when the kids turn sixteen desperately poised between the Scylla of buying them a car and hoping they will learn to drive it safely and the Charybdis of knowing they will otherwise be riding in their friends' cars. I was fortunate that twenty years ago when my daughter hit her early teens we lived in an English city with a compact footprint and an excellent local bus service: between that and walking she got around very well on her own from the age of twelve upwards, had an excellent social and cultural life and gained a wonderful sense of independence and autonomy. From there she went to college in New York City and didn't learn to drive until well after graduation. This is one of the experiences which puts me very much in agreement with JMG that we have much to gain in quality of life from transitioning to a far less car-dependent world.
As well as the pollution and safety issues mentioned above, using horses for dedicated personal transportation has always generally been a relatively expensive option unavailable to most ordinary people. They do run on bio-fuel, of course, and I don't know the mpg equivalent of corn as feedstock for draft and riding animals compared to ethanol. I believe the human animal is a fairly efficient bio-fuel user especially when attached to a simple mechanical device such as a bicycle: I have seen calculations that the calories in a couple of ears of corn eaten by a cyclist translate into a 200 - 300 mpg gasoline equivalent. No coal needed for processing.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 6:07 am
24 Jun 2007
Yep, what I been sayin'. Now that Big Ag (with an assist from Big Auto, Big Oil, and the rest of Big Bidness) has had its marketing/political/lobbying way, we (but more importantly the poor and the environment) will be saddled with the result for years to come.
Regarding Sandoval's position, it appears to me abolishing the military to keep it away from the criminal stooges in charge makes good sense. We should at least stop funding the advocates of the 'perennial war for perennial peace' meme (read that: 'goddam lie') adopted by the Neo-Cons--'con' having more and more alternate meaning.
Instead of this absurd idea, we should adopt the Swiss principle. Someone should check this for accuracy but I heard in one conversation a statement attributed to the Swiss: 'We don't HAVE an army--we ARE the army.' This to me has profound, stunning value, and contributes to the position offered by others that the Nazi Wehrmacht woulda had their asses handed back to them in the form of hamburger. I maintain a citizen army has a much higher threshold of both critique and commitment, and is far less likely to go along with the criminal adventures of BushCo. or other authoritarian liars.
I agree with what I perceive to be the Amazing Dr. X's position on rebates/taxes/subsidies--all of them are abused so widely and egregiously, that under the present system (uh, that being the corporate oligarchy) any proposed will go the wrong people, i.e., those with the biggest lobbies/ad campaigns. I submit Big Ag as my proof.
I been sayin' this for a long time: we need to fundamentally improve/overhaul three U.S. Federal laws: on elections, campaign finance, and lobbying. To paraphrase Gandhi, we must also fight and protest for the change we wish to see in the world, and to apply Thoreau, this is striking more directly at the root of evil.
Ah, well, another day, another step backward. Hard to imagine I do have hope.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
cigarettes Posted 11:07 pm
18 Jun 2008
signature: "I like to drink coffee and smoking cheap cigarettes before bed. I dream faster." (c) Steven Wright: Coffee and cigarettes
"I like to drink coffee and smoking cigarettes before bed. I dream faster." (c) Steven Wright: Coffee and cigarettes
Permalink