Ken Johnson’s Posts

• It’s Easy Being Green, but ...

  Saving the planet is hard 1

  Posted 1 month, 1 week agoPaul Krugman concludes in "It's easy being green," that "the claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax." Indeed, but the notion that the Waxman-Markey legislation is about "saving the planet" (Krugman's words) is equally inscrutable.

• Duelling diatribes

  Hansen versus Romm 0

  Posted 3 months, 4 weeks ago

  For all of Waxman-Markey's faults, I think it gets two things right: (1) allowance set-asides to fund tropical forest conservation, and (2) a meaningful price floor...However, they leave W-M with no coherent policy foundation, because its other regulatory mechanisms -- the cap, trading, economy-wide linkage, banking, borrowing, and offsets -- all operate to achieve the converse objective of minimizing costs within limits of a predetermined (and unsustainable) emission cap.

• Ken Johnson

  Even More About Me 0

  Posted 3 months, 4 weeks ago

  [8/19/2009]

  I am a California resident and climate policy activist with a particular interest in California’s legislative policy related to climate change. My advocacy activities have focused recently on California’s AB 32 legislation and the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

  Recent writings:

  "Preserving Additionality of Complementary GHG-Reduction Actions Under Waxman-Markey" (June 16, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1421947
  
  "A Decarbonization Strategy for the Electricity Sector: New-Source Subsidies" (July 22, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427106
  
  "The Role of Policy Logic in U.S. Climate Legislation" (July 23, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437741

  I have provided comments, testimony, and technical analysis for the following groups and activities (search for "Johnson"):

  Western Environmental… Read More

• How 'tough' is tough enough?

  Obama's 'tougher fuel standards' 2

  Posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago

  Four questions about the Obama administration's planned fuel standards for automobiles.

• Obama's cap-and-trade plan

  If sticks don't work, try carrots 0

  Posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

  For an $80 billion program, President Barack Obama's cap-and-trade proposal is very short on specifics. His budget plan [PDF] provides only the briefest policy rationale for cap-and-trade, describing it as "a policy approach that dramatically reduced acid rain at much lower costs than the traditional government regulations and mandates of the past."

All Posts

Ken Johnson’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "RGGI appears to be off to a good start, with low permit prices and no evidence of gaming." There isn't much incentive for gaming with CO2 prices at $2/ton. The House climate bill is in a different league, with its floor price starting at $10/ton. "The [SO2] program regulating power plants has exceeded expectations, beating the SO2 emissions cap years ahead of schedule and costing only one-fourth of what was expected." Blah, blah, blah. I'm so weary of this kind on inane parroting of dogmatic drivel. The only motivation that regulated entities had for "beating the SO2 emissions cap years ahead of schedule" is that they could exceed the cap in future years (via banking). The low price, even with prodigious banking, is evidence of overly lax regulation. The EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule would provide an estimated 25-to-1 societal return-on-investment, but would be limited by the large number of banked allowances that industry has been able to hoard as a hedge against more stringent future regulations. Trading, banking, and offsets are, in effect, sanctioned forms of "gaming" that allow industry to keep emission reductions capped at an unsustainable level. The least-cost, least-effort regulatory paradigm underlying cap-and-trade is fundamentally a game of procrastination.On Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry? posted 3 days, 12 hours ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hapa - There is a lot of "low-hanging fruit" -- especially energy efficiency -- that will literally "pay for itself". ("... the entire 2020 target in the Waxman-Markey climate bill could be met with energy efficiency at a net savings to U.S. consumers and businesses of $700 billion ...") According to the California Air Resources Board, vehicle efficiency improvements beyond existing state regulations would yield a net return-on-investment of $262/ton-CO2 just from fuel savings. Seed funding for efficiency and clean-energy technologies can come from the private sector, as it does with the Berkeley FIRST financing program for residential solar. For the higher-hanging fruit that has positive costs, the government does not necessarily have to pay the costs. Let the polluters' pay! But they wouldn't necessarily need to pay very much. For example, if carbon fees in the electricity sector are used exclusively to subsidize new-source, renewable energy generation, then the fees would start out at zero because there would initially be no "new" sources. So if we can't get the big, monster federal climate bill, let the states have at it!On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 6 days ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Okay. 2nd try: Does effective climate policy necessarily require government "cash"?On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 6 days, 3 hours ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  That's true, the states are handicapped by not being able to print their own money. But does effective climate policy necessarily require a handout of government money?On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 6 days, 5 hours ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  So if the federal government is completely dysfunctional, what is to prevent the states from banding together and doing what the fed's are incapable of doing?On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 6 days, 7 hours ago 29 Responses