BILL HANNAHAN
The Basics
- Name: BILL HANNAHAN
BILL HANNAHAN’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Sean, I agree that our views are close.
It is not clear that you distinguish virgin fossil carbon from recycled atmospheric carbon. The issue is the increasing concentration of CO2 resulting from the continual injection of new fossil carbon. Only that stream requires an atmospheric dumping fee.
I do not understand why you think the fossil carbon stream needs a different treatment than other harmful atmospheric emissions. A dumping fee equal to the best scientific estimates of the damage caused by each of these things works best. Those cost estimates can be refined as the science becomes more accurate.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Sean, i am puzzled by this comment because i am generally in agreement with what you said.
But it is irresponsible to assume that an immediate phase-out as we have done for toxics is possible. Scale down, yes. Phase out, no.
I have not called for phase-out, quite the contrary.
Bio gases are not first generation fossil but we use fosil fuel to produce food, and the damage done by those emisions should be included in the food price.
Carbon or CO2 taxes... are extremely inefficient EMISSION CONTROL mechanisms.... So our real choices are: (1) tax, and then go to regulation, or (2) go straight to regulation. The more important question, therefore, is: what is the most efficient form of regulation?
Aldyen. You are assuming that the best goal is a specified level of emission to be determined by politicians.
Actually the goal should be to maximize quality of life. There is a relationship between the emission rate and quality of life. It is not linear, it is a curve with an inflection point.
Allowing waste to be dumped into the atmosphere free of charge has resulted in a condition well away from the inflection point. requiring zero or very low emissions will put us on the other end of that curve, perhaps increasing human suffering well beyond current levels.
I do not trust politicians to know what the optimum level is. Charging the full cost of damage done will automatically drive the technology to the optimum mix whatever that is.
Most of the immediate damage is from particulates, mercury, sulfur and NOx, things not even being considered in current regulations. We need atmmospheric dumping fees for all of these in order to maximize quality of life.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
.
You like calling it a tax because people oppose taxes. It is really a toxic waste dumping fee. Nobody thinks companies should be able to dump toxic waste free of charge.
Call it a dumping fee and include all toxic wastes dumped into the atmosphere, CO2, mercury, cadmium, particulates, sulfur, NOx etc. Set the price equal to the best estimate of the cost of damage done. Rebate the money.
Most people would accept this if it was properly explained, Hansen has it right.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Ahhh, now I understand. If cavemen had simply mandated smoke free energy they would have gone directly to windmills and solar cells.
On Myth: Tackling climate change requires fundamental technological breakthroughs posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 4 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
What's the alternative?
1...Implement a $100 billion / year R&D budget that pushes all technologies as hard and fast as possible. $100 billion / year is not much to solve the two biggest problems faced by 6.5 billion people, energy and climate change. The economic return for getting it right will be many orders of magnitude larger.
2...Build demonstration plants of every technology as it becomes possible. If the first one fails, build improved models until the technology is proven to be useful or not.
3...Publish all the data.
4...Eliminate all subsidies. Note that R&D and subsidies are two completely different things. With R&D there is always the potential for a dramatic breakthrough that will change everything. Not so with subsidies.
5...Include all external costs for all technologies.
6...Allow the cost of energy to rise or fall to its real value on a totally level field.
7...Allow a well informed private sector of individuals and corporations to select the best technology for mass production.
This process will produce the best solution, whatever it is, in the shortest time.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
On What's the alternative? posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses