Zach Arnold’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  re: Wolverine

  Wolverine - true, the demand curve for gas is not linear, and consumers may respond more strongly as the price of gas increases further. But the point is that the price signal these increases would embody is far, far larger than the price signal we could expect to achieve from taxing or capping carbon. It would take a carbon price of about $200 a ton to effect the 4% reduction in driving we've seen thus far (as Jim Barrett explained in his post); increasing the price of gas further via a carbon tax/cap, then, would require raising the carbon price significantly above $200/ton. Not exactly feasible...

  cheers, ZachOn Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  re: Zach

  David,

  I realize you have a history with Shellenberger and Nordhaus, but it'd be nice if you could engage the ideas, rather than whatever idea of me and the rest of the fellows you seem to have already formed. Sarcasm and belittling the messenger might work for you normally (I don't know - I'm a new commenter), but they reflect poorly on Grist and your argument.

  In any case, by "more effective" I was referring to government RD&D funding, which has a proven track record in promoting clean energy (see: Denmark's early investment in wind technology, American renewable energy subsidies and RPS initiatives, etc). The success of existing cap-and-trade regimes (like the ETS) in reducing emissions, meanwhile, is considerably less certain.

  Cheers -ZachOn Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  And just to clarify...

  On that note, David, since you support both carbon pricing and investment (or so I gather), what do you think we should prioritize? Do you think that cap-and-trade should be the principal means to drive emissions reductions?

  Actually curious,
  ZachOn Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Priorities

  All snark aside, David, it's a question of priorities. While most of us support adopting a diverse portfolio of tactics to address climate change, talk is cheap. Where are the environmental community's resources (nonprofit advocacy efforts, publicity, legislative legwork, etc.) directed? Mostly toward carbon pricing regimes like Lieberman/Warner, iCAP, Sky Trust, etc., as far as I can tell. This emphasis is dangerously misguided. Perhaps we should be focusing first on more effective approaches to the climate crisis instead.

  -ZachOn Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The price is the problem

  That's well and good, Ryan - but let's be clear that the price signal embodied in the currently high price of gas (to use the example that you and Sullivan cite) far exceeds anything we could hope to achieve in a cap-and-trade regime. Jim Barrett wrote a great post at Grist recently and noted that the recent price increase in gas is about what would be expected to result from a carbon price of $200 per ton! That's far more than the price of carbon under any current (or currently envisioned) regime - and, as Barrett notes, even that price increase has only led to modest behavior changes, something like a 4% reduction in driving overall.

  A similar dynamic applies to electricity generation - the carbon prices necessary to make renewables cost-effective are way higher than anything being considered, as our recent article in the Harvard Law and Policy Review explains. The price signal mechanism works in theory, but in practice, will it be strong enough to effect broad change on its own? Probably not.

  -Zach Arnold
  Fellow, Breakthrough GenerationOn Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses