Comments ngoddard has made

  • Pay now or pay much more later

    During the recent run up in oil price, commentators were surprised that at the same time, more or less, everything else went up too (e.g., food).  What a coincidence!  Eventually they figured out it perhaps had to do with oil being used for production of just about everything, services included.

    The longer we wait, the higher the oil prices are going.  Since it takes oil to build all that new non-oil infrastructure like the replacement of the vehicle fleet with non-oil vehicles, the longer we wait the more expensive it is going to get to transition.  Which means, essentially, that living standards are going to go down one way or another to pay for it.  Pay now, or pay much more later.

    Unless, perhaps, we get moving right away, or, perhaps, there is some technical breakthrough that gets us more oil-equivalent on a global scale within years.  Neither very likely!On Short-term dip in oil prices will not offset long-term increases posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

  • Rebound

    What is your solution to the rebound problem produced by energy efficiency?  The money Dow/DOE saved will have gone to some other economic activity which will have consumed energy.  Energy efficiency on its own has the paradoxical effect of increasing energy use because it is effectively reducing the cost of energy.

    Would you combine it with raising energy prices through some other means?  A fundamental part of the puzzle is politically effective ways to make energy - particularly carbon-based energy - more expensive than it is now, relative to other inputs.On Energy efficiency is the core climate solution, part 2 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

  • Ground vs. Air heat pumps

    Amazngdrx: it's a shame you haven't managed to download and read the book (or the relevant bits).  He says quite a bit about geo and air source heat pumps (see below).  BTW, I found I could not open his pdf on a Mac, but opens fine in Ubuntu and Windows.

    Here's some of what he says about heat pumps (missing out all the physics) (bold emphasis is mine):


       Assume that we have a neighbourhood with quite a high population density - say 6200 people per km2 (160 m2 per person), the density of a typical English suburb. Can everyone use ground-source heat pumps, without using the summer replenishment trick? A calculation on p.?? gives a tentative answer of no: if we were aiming for everyone in the neighbourhood to be able to pull from the ground a heat flow of about 48 kWh/d (my estimate of our typical winter heat demand), we'd end up freezing the ground in the winter.

       Avoiding unreasonable cooling of the ground requires that the sucking rate be less than 12 kWh/d. So when we switch to heat pumps, we should plan to include substantial summer heat-dumping in the design, to refill the ground with heat for use in the Winter. This summer heat-dumping could use heat from air-conditioning, or heat from roof-mounted solar water-heating panels.

       Alternatively, we should expect to need to use some air-source heat pumps too, and then we'll be able to get all the heat we want - as long as we have the electricity to pump it. In the UK, air temperatures don't go very far below freezing, so concerns about poor winter-time coefficient of performance of air-source pumps, which might apply in North America and Scandanavia, probably do not apply in Britain.

       Nay-sayers object that the coefficient of performance of air-source heat pumps is lousy - just 2 or 3. But their information is out of date. If we are careful to buy top-of-the-line heat pumps, we can do much better.  The Japanese government has legislated a decade-long efficiency drive that has greatly improved the performance of air-conditioners; thanks to this drive, there are now air-source heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of 4.9; these heat pumps can make hot water http://www.ecosystem-japan.com/

    Do you still think he's got it wrong on heat pumps?On A Cambridge physicist's cooling summer treat posted 1 year, 5 months ago 27 Responses

  • Does your solution add up?

    I think a lot of you are missing the main point of this book.  I've had the benefit of discussing it with the author.

    The main point he's making is, IMHO: does your solution add up?  Saying we will need every trick is not really an answer.  We don't have the time or energy or money to pursue every trick.  We have to make some choices.  Whatever choices we make, they better add up to a plan that works in physical terms (i.e., delivers the energy required for the lifestyle expected).

    If you think he's got some numbers wrong, I think he'd like to hear from you.  He is very keen that numbers be correct.  Similarly for a technology he's missing.

    It may be the case that social movements get going with small steps.  Fine, so long as those small steps aren't put forward as a sustainable energy system.  He doesn't talk about how to get to the sustainable energy system (much), but what such a thing could look like.  A good example is the feed-in tariffs that Germany and other EU countries use to promote growth in micro-renewables.  They work great at kickstarting the industry.  But they are completely unsustainable economically (would consume way too much budget) if micro-renewables were to actually achieve major penetration.  So, a stop gap, a stepping stone, but not part of a target sustainable system.
    On A Cambridge physicist's cooling summer treat posted 1 year, 5 months ago 27 Responses

  • So how will your company sell emissions credits?

    If I read correctly, your company is planning to sell emissions credits.  Where do these come from?  If it is from installing new infrastructure to ensure wasted energy gets used somewhere productive, then aren't these credits precisely for additional reductions?  What if the energy originated from non-fossil sources?  If you get these, shouldn't I get them for turning down the thermostat in my home?  And if we are going down that path, just put a tax on the fossil fuels and it will have the same effect, no?  The tax effectively increases the return your company makes by installing the new infrastructure, and we don't have to be arguing over which reductions to count. On Does additionality matter? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 29 Responses

  • Free carbon credits guaranteed to raise prices

    European experience is that, just as standard economics predicts, giving away carbon credits which can be traded by the recipients for non-zero price results in price increases by those recipients.  i.e., windfall profits for utilities and other carbon-intensive emitters.

    It's simple to understand why this must be the case.    If I'm running a utility I decide the price for electricity based on what I need to do to satisfy investor demands for return on capital (assuming a competitive market).  Suddenly my cost base goes up because I'm charged for carbon emissions, and at the same time I'm given credits worth the same amount which I can trade for cash.  I see these as two completely different things.  The credits are effectively cash - ok what should I invest that in - certainly not in paying the emission cost as that generates no return.  The emission cost increase means I'm going to have to raise prices to cover the emission cost - and I'm confident I can because I see all my competitors just got hit with the same emission cost.  So, prices go up and the carbon credit value is a windfall profit to me.On The Congressional Budget Office savages the Lieberman-Warner approach to climate change pol posted 2 years ago 1 Response

  • Cars have negative network externality

    Mobile phones have positive network externality (the utility of my phone increases every time someone else buys a mobile phone) - the holy grail of 21st century economics.  Cars are so 20th century - they have negative network externality (the utility of my car goes down every time someone else buys a car thereby driving up (sic) my congestion, etc).  Cars - just say no!On Why I don't agree with James Kunstler about peak oil and the 'end of suburbia' posted 2 years, 1 month ago 65 Responses

  • 2000-2006 recession? I must have missed it

    Can you point me to some evidence for this?  A 6-year worldwide recession?  Sure I live in Scotland but even we should have noticed something like that!On Atmospheric CO2 rises more than expected since 2000 posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • EU is auctioning permits

    It's up to member states, but they are choosing to do it e.g., UK:

    In Phase I, given the newness of the EU ETS, effectively all allowances were distributed on a free basis. The EU ETS Directive permits Member States to auction up to 10% of allowances in Phase II, which runs from 2008 to 2012. The UK's National Allocation Plan (NAP) for Phase II of EU ETS, published last summer, set out the Government's intention to auction 7% of the total UK emissions allowances.

    From here.On New U.S. Pirg report recommends 100 percent of allowances be auctioned posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Mistaken analogy

    It's not an emergency.  The climate isn't assaulting us full frontal (Katrina was peanuts).  If you are going to rely on people feeling it is an emergency, you are going to have to wait until it is way too late.  I don't have a better answer unfortunatly, but I think relying on the emergency scenario is wishful thinking.  I wish I could see a way forward.  What I see instead are social, political and economic systems that are incapable of responding appropriately, and incapable of the required radical change.  The only bright spot is that increasing numbers of people - although still a tiny minority -  seem to be realising this; which might yet provide an opportunity.  Or maybe that is more wishful thinking.On Is global warming the moral equivalent of World War II? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses

  • one step forward

    Great!  Auction + cap'n'trade is economically equivalent to a tax.  Let's get the former agreed, then we can swiftly move on to the administratively much simpler tax.  I gather that is the EU plan, maybe the US can beat them to it!On New U.S. Pirg report recommends 100 percent of allowances be auctioned posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Use the existing accounting mechanisms

    The simple way to do this is to assign a carbon-cost (in say carbon-pence/kg or grams/kg) to every primary fuel source (e.g. oil or gas at the beach or import terminal, coal at the minehead, etc).  From that point on in the supply chain every current monetary transaction (including corporation-internal) would be mirrored with a carbon-cost transaction.  Every spreadsheet would be duplicated (one for money, one for carbon).  Transaction prices would be doublets - one for money, one for carbon.  At the level of the individual consumer, the carbon "price" would be displayed to the consumer, but of course not collected.

    This might sound like a lot of work, but it is unlikely to be any more than all the work involved in tracking carbon any other way.  It would be easy enough for companies to duplicate spreadsheets, and there are not that many accounting software packages that would need to be modified.  The beauty is it leverages the existing accounting mechanisms, documents and workflows.

    Individuals could also carry a carbon-card which adds up their carbon purchases, letting them know what their carbon footprint is.

    Imports are the biggest headache.  The embodied carbon would need to be estimated.  But that's going to have to be done anyway - at least this proposal would mean the domestic economy could deal with carbon accounting easily.

    Eventually it might be decided that it would just be simpler to convert the carbon-price at source to a monetary price, and let it all flow through to the consumer in the price, rather than making people look at both price and carbon.  The revenue thus raised (from the carbon-price at source) could be used to retire regressive or anti-employment taxes.
    On Can a bag of potato chips point the way to saving the planet? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • Oh come on


    Use the carbon tax to replace some other tax no one likes like sales tax or FICA.  No new revenue to the government.  No problem allocating it.  The market allocates it.

    Anyone who can't see how simple it can be just does not want to understand.  Now there may be very good political reasons to oppose a tax (e.g., the opposition will kill you with negative ads, or it doesn't give the same opportunities for gaming as capntrade), but don't try to pretend there is any substantitive issue.On Conservative critique of the carbon tax posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Nukes: the markets have spoken

    The UK government is pushing nukes.  The Scottish government says "no way".  Irrelevant.  The generating industry has said they have no intention of building any new nukes in Scotland - because it's too expensive to get the power to where the people are (only 5 million in the whole of Scotland, versus 55 million in the rest of the UK).

    Scotland is just going to have to depend on renewables.  Fortunately we have some of the best wind, wave and tidal in the world, so it might be doable - and we can import electricity from England if we need to bridge a gap.

    And I hear that they won't be building new nukes in England either because the UK government says it isn't going to subsidise.

    It seems that the market has decided for us - oh well, just have develop those renewables after all.On Using high gas prices to push for a rebirth posted 2 years, 6 months ago 74 Responses

  • Bite

    Why would you want a 3 year climate prediction for your zipcode?  Anyone who has lived in a location for even a few years has a pretty good idea of the climate there.  And if you just moved there or are thinking of doing so, ask around, google for the average sun/rain for the region, etc.

    Not much of a market for climate prediction by zipcode - so the market doesn't provide it.On More debunkery of everyone's favorite fiction writer posted 2 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

  • No new taxes! Replace taxes!

    Carbon tax shouldn't be a new tax.  It should be a replacement for existing taxes.  Say sales tax or FICA, which everyone hate.  Eventually income tax and corporate tax - or maybe these first if that's more politically palatable.

    There would need to be equivalent import taxes on carbon embodied in incoming goods/services.  And a refund of carbon tax on goods/services exported.  These import taxes and export refunds could be eliminated for other countries joining in a Free Carbon Area which would have a uniform carbon tax.

    Not a new idea by any means but the time might be right.

    NigelOn A new study with intriguing conclusions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • Cherry waiting to be picked

    Wouldn't a Corporate Carbon Tax that was refunded directly to consumers on a per-capita basis or a per-taxpayer basis be wildly popular?  Not only are we going to drive the economy towards low-carbon and thereby get a headstart on the technologies of the future and help save the planet, but most of you are going to be better off right away as a result!  How can that possibly not be a vote-winner?

    Of course there would need to be import taxes on goods and services produced in a no/lower carbon tax regime, or else a lot of the carbon-intensive industries will just move to a low carbon-tax environment.  But hey, even more revenue to hand out to US consumers, so even more voters will be winners!

    I can only guess that the reason no politician is pushing this is that their campaign contributions would dry up overnight - as the bulk of contributions no doubt come from people who would perhaps not be better off with the proceeds of carbon taxes.On If you can really call Chris Dodd a 'contender' posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

  • Airlines paying fuel taxes

    That's correct, airlines don't pay fuel taxes.  There's a bit of an argument going on about it here in the EU.  Anytime anyone says lets make the airlines pay fuel tax, it pretty soon comes down to well, we can't make the foreign (read US) airlines pay fuel tax due to international agreements, so taxing EU airline fuel will just put EU airlines out of business.  With the recent US-EU open-skies agreement, which lets US airlines fly between any two points in the US (without a corresponding right for EU airlines in the US, btw), there is absolutely no chance of the EU taxing airline fuel unless the US does.

    There are some creative ideas out there.  For example, if I recall correctly, George Montbiot has suggested that rapid ratcheting down of the number of landing slots.  That doesn't need international agreement (i.e., it can be done while Dubya is still in the White House).  Here is a paragraph (he's talking about UK environmentalists and government):


    Unlike most environmentalists, who have also called for this measure, the government knows perfectly well that fuel tax cannot be imposed on international flights. It is prohibited under international law by article 24 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which has been set in stone by 4,000 bilateral treaties - making it almost impossible to unpick. Now the government proposes that aviation be incorporated into the European Emissions Trading Scheme. If flights continue to grow, it will break the system.

    The full article here  is an extract from his most recent book.On Only the little people fly scheduled airlines posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

  • Boxer's understanding of carbon politics

    Why does Boxer say a carbon tax is on consumers but cap'n trade hits industry - implying the latter is more politically palatable because it only hits consumers indirectly?

    Tax upstream, a la Gar, (e.g., refiners) and the consumer will never see it except in a price rise.  And cap'n trade will cause the same price rise if its going to be effective.  And either way those who want to will blame the price rise on the government.  So I can only conclude she wants an ineffective cap'n trade to be able to say something is being done without actually doing anything much.

    Why aren't they talking about what to do with the proceeds of an effective system?  Any effective system would generate such vast amounts of revenue that it would be a major political decision as to who gets the recycled revenues.  And that's familiar territory for politicians.  Move the debate on - what's best for recycling revenues.On Boxer is a fighter posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

  • GMO... another idea

    How about this idea posted on realclimate.org here.
    Any idea if this is feasible?

    I wish someone would take a serious look at what I am working on: An ocean-powered pump (powered by thermal energy stored in the ocean) that brings up cold water and nutrients from 1000-meter depth and distributes them over the tropical ocean surface. Benefits: cooling of surface water and overlying atmosphere, use of dissolved CO2 for photosynthesis so that less CO2 is available for decalcification of ocean creatures, enhancement of thermohaline overturning. Pumping rate is 10 cubic meters/sec. Takes 100,000 pumps to make a measurable response to global warming and fisheries destruction.

    Comment by Richard LaRosa -- 17 Apr 2007 @ 6:02 pm

    On The basic approach of the Bright Lines project posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • Not so simple...

    The principle seems right - but you then have the opposite problem of giving credits for carbon-mitigating activites downstream of the tax or permit.  For example, coal is taxed at the minehead.  Without a credit to a power-company for installing carbon-sequestration technology, there would be no incentive to install such technologies.  Such credits would be open to the same mistakes and gaming of downstream taxing.  

    Since mitigation is in principle possible right up to the point of actually burning the fossil fuel, it is possible that the credit system could be as complex as a downstream tax system.  I guess the best way around this would be to not credit small mitigation activities (thereby penalising them) in favour of crediting just the big mitigation opportunities.On Because shopping shouldn't require matrix algebra posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses