A Siegel’s Posts

• Take the Table Scraps or Fight for More?

  How to deal with the climate bill 17

  Posted 5 months, 1 week ago

  Al Gore says support Waxman-Markey. Paul Krugman says support it. Two Nobel Prize Winners. Who am I to question them?

All Posts

A Siegel’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Alec -- Replying off wrong message since can't respond above.

  
  My home site is Get Energy Smart! NOW! (http://getenergysmartnow.com) with posting at Huffpost, EcoGeek, EnergyBoom, Celsias, etc ... Focus, writ-large, intersection of energy & environmental ... including a touch of business perspective.

  I've had a few posts picked up here at Grist over the years. Since they've edited them in, don't know if they're linked in with my user id here.

  And, yes, well aware of the denier sound machine and regularly play a role in responding to that truthiness/deception laden chorus.

  On How to deal with the climate bill posted 5 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Alec

  I see many paths for 'Making Green by Going Green' and creating 'relatively painless' paths to reduce emissions.

  In fact, I believe that McKinsey has significantly overstated the near-term costs of dealing with climate change (and they are typically cited as optimistic, placing a relatively low cost) because they do not engage in a systems-of-systems analysis of costs and benefits. They explicitly put health care costs and health benefits off the table; they do not examine move from high albedo (white) or green roofing to a lowered heat island impact further lowering air conditioning requirements; they do not calculate into the equation the productivity improvements (in work place, schooling, etc) from 'greening' buildings ...

  
  We have a real opportunity for significant change at a positive ROI, especially in the near (next decade or so due to efficiency opportunities) even without considering that pesky little problem of Global Warming.

  E.g., there is real power and opportunity for a 'no regrets strategy' part of the discussion since so much of what is required to be done can be done at an overall benefit even without considering reduced GHG emissions as part of the discussion.

  I have (in other pieces) praised the energy efficiency elements of W-M.  I am now disappointed by the clean energy elements (why isn't clean energy funded at least equally with dirty energy (and, no, CCS is not clean energy)?).  This discussion is about the specific climate change / global warming section of the bill which has, imo, been significantly compromised ... and compromised in a way (the give-away of a $trillion+ of permits with some quite scary implications dealt with elsewhere) that will seems likely to compromise (if not sabotage) our ability to pursue a stronger program 5, 10, 20 years from now.

  Now, I agree about "framing". I agree about the value of having a structure to help shift basic thinking. There is value for having a "win" to build on and pursue further wins.  But, we should strive to have something that, even if it is too weak today, can be strengthened tomorrow without too high a lost opportunity cost.

  Note in my three suggestions that I did not argue for raising the RES. In fact, I see it quite possible that we will exceed the W-M target without that and see that RES as something that can be strengthened. Note that I did not suggest pushing the 2020 targets in line with IPCC (25-40% below 1990 levels) as, again, that is something that might be strengthened in years to come.   Those three suggestions, in my perspective, all address elements that cannot be reclaimed (except at extraordinary cost) once put into law.

  On How to deal with the climate bill posted 5 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Alec,

  
  First, I will put forward a mea culpa ... it simply it is not worth it, for either of us, to engage in an unncecesasry battle. Thus, again, mea culpa for stepping out strongly.

  Re Stavins piece, I find it quite interesting -- as with all his work. Let me provide a misperception that I see that piece as continuing/reinforcing. 

  From Stavins: "Given the nature of the allowance allocation in the Waxman-Markey legislation, the best way to assess its implications is not as "free allocation" versus "auction," but rather in terms of who is the ultimate beneficiary of each element of the allocation and auction, that is, how the value of the allowances is allocated. On closer inspection, it turns out that many of the elements of the apparently free allocation accrue to consumers and public purposes, not private industry."

  I refer to direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry/interests.  Stavins (as many) places cost containment measures (such as Electricity and natural gas local distribution companies, 22.2%; Home heating oil/propane, 0.9%) as "consumers and public purposes".  Let us simply accept that much (if not most or even all) of those funds will go to consumers. In my reading of financial interests, this represents an indirect subsidy of the continuation of fossil fuel usage by lowering/muting the price signal of any price being placed on burning dirty energy.

  On How to deal with the climate bill posted 5 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Alec,

   

  It is unclear that you want "healthy debate", instead it seems that you want mindless support, putting people on phone banks with a text that you provide.

  
  There are a number of critical problems with W-M, most notably the huge amount of give-aways that will be impossible to carve back in the future and that handicap (if not cripple) any ability to move toward something with even a marginal chance of doing enough to turn the tide on Global Warming's rising seas.

  
  If the problem were solely the RES ... If the issue were solely that the 2050 targets were inadequate in face of what the IPCC laid out, ...  Those are things that can be strengthened as time moves on, as we have success with EE/RE, as climate change's risks become ever clearer to a larger portion of the populace.

   

  A $trillion plus in direct and indirect subsidies for polluting energy is money that will never be retrievable once given away. That sort of massive rent seeking is not reversible. 

   

  And, what is the message?  Are you stating that W-M is "effective climate legislation"?  That is, as noted, a hard nut to swallow.

  
  No ... Alec ... you are not looking for a "healthy debate" ...

   

   

  On How to deal with the climate bill posted 5 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Absolutely agree.

  
  How anyone could call this "innovative" is beyond me.

  
  Great that $75k more is going to solar cookers, but it might have been better spent giving it to people who have actual experience tackling the challenges of gaining social acceptance of solar cookers in various environments. Solar Cooking International; SHE, Inc; etc ... There are people already making this work in the real world -- and even with systems that don't even cost $6.

   

  Have to say that the article here is a joke. No reference to any of the organizations or other solar cooking organizations out there.

   

  No links to options for solar cooking in the developed world.

   

  No ...

   

  What a waste of a prize ... what a waste of a post ...

  On Kyoto stove wins $75,000 FT climate change innovation competition posted 7 months ago 17 Responses