Comments joebhed has made

  • To maxx at 7:32


    maxx

    I am going to catch up, and then I think I will be computer-less for about a week.

    Yes, I did misunderstand that point.
    I hope that, regardless, what it came down to is that there is not, cannot be, any certainty about any of the policy proposals we are discussing.

    I believe you said that later.
    Something about, we "prioritize" different aspects of the policies.

    At one point you said that C&T proponents recognize this upfront, but that some carbon taxers like me claim that the tax can produce "known" levels of benefits.

    I think you would agree that this is not my position at all.
    To the contrary, my position is that neither of the scenarios, cap or tax, can have known levels of benefits either.  I wrote that earlier.

    You also opine that my RPS-like scenario does not apply to C&T because we have so many technology options here.

    I am not sure what they are, maxx, and I think our short to medium term options are inadequate.
    Once we get to 2020 or 2025 I think we will do fine.
    It is the interim that I worry about.

    I haven't seen the analysis that says we can accomplish the 80 percent in a "rational" manner without both nukes and CCS.
    And, to me, no CCS is tantamount to no renewables.
    Thus, the RPS parallel.
    The uncertainty again.

    And THAT uncertainty undermines your claim that the C&T gives you the certainty of the emissions reduction level.
    The only degree of certainty possible in the short term is a shut down minimally of some of the existing coal plants, threatening reliability of electric service.

    To me, C&T is a "build it and they will come" philosophy.
    If the C&T is going to include an auction and a flow of funds as I indicated earlier, and to Sean, then why introduce the uncertainty of the cost.
    We should strive to achieve our public policy goals on a least-cost basis.

    You say you prioritize getting 80 percent reductions by a certain time.
    I prioritize that also.
    But some economic principle out there tells me that the more it costs in year one and year two and three, the less capital there is going to be available, and the more costly it is going to be, in year 38.

    As far as having it both ways goes, I harken back to the CBO study, which I trust by now you understand looked at ALL the policy proposals in ALL the bills in the Congress.

    " The most efficient policy tool for decreasing CO2 emissions is the one that can best balance the costs and benefits of the reductions, even when both are uncertain."

    "The policy options described here differ in their potential to reduce emissions efficiently, to be implemented with relatively low administrative costs, and to create incentives for emission reductions that are consistent with incentives in other countries."

    "CBO draws the following conclusions:
    A tax on emissions would be the most efficient
    incentive-based option for reducing emissions and
    could be relatively easy to implement."

    Still.

    Thanks.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • sean at 9;41

    Alright, Sean.
    I have not been ignoring you.
    I have been reading over your five-part manifesto.
    There is a lot I don't understand.

    Let's start with the simple stuff.
    You have mentioned that the C&T proposals to date are unacceptable.
    I agree.
    I am unsure what C&T proposal IS acceptable to you.
    Is that defined somewhere?
    If it is, I didn't see it.
    I don't understand some of the basis for the analysis.
    If you are following MY "carbon tax and incentive" proposals on this page, then you know that I am not talking the same carbon tax as you.
    I am talking about a carbon tax scenario WITH both sticks and carrots.
    My carbon tax proposal `mimics" the funds flow from the auction scenarios of several proposed C&T bills.

    I repeat - a flow of costs and benefits from consumers to consumers.
    The inflow of costs come from consumers to the government, through the carbon-producing industries.
    The outflow of benefits goes from the government to the consumers through the same mechanism as other proposals for funding technology research and development, capital investment and income-stabilization.
    THAT is how someone who is reducing a ton of carbon in a carbon tax regime gets access to revenues.

    Neither of us is backing any proposal already out there.
    Both of us recognize that we cannot get to what I think are our common goals without there being an investment pool available to fund the technology solutions that are needed.
    I think you and I are on equal footing.

    Having said that, maybe all I should do is ask why ANY proposal for C&T is superior to the carbon tax I am proposing?

    Is it an anti-government thing?
    I tried to address that.
    Is it fondness for the free marketplace, that invisible hand?
    Or, does it have something to do, again, with efficiency?

    In your example, the solar dude is selling his "carbon reduction credits"(CRCs) to the coal dude.
    What the coal dude has is an inadequate supply of carbon "allowances to pollute" (my term).

    Are carbon allowances to pollute the same thing as CRCs?
    If so, where did the solar guy get the credits?
    You posit that every(?) energy source will either have to buy something, or will sell something.
    There's a certain perceived balance here.
    I have no idea from where that balance comes.
    Is it just assumed?

    What if there are not enough of one of those somethings, like CRCs.
    Again, I am not sure where the "good guys" get their CRCs.
    In your scenario, this assumed balance lets the goods offset the evils.

    Let's say we're five years out, and FOR WHATEVER REASON, there are not enough new CRC-bearing entities without enough CRCs to sell.
    Not enough of those solar power plants got built.  
    What happens?

    This is akin to the RPS scenario to me.
    It's a "meet or pay" CAP.
    So, we pay.
    We still pollute.
    I just don't see how your scenario is any more efficient, any more certain, any more economical or any more viable than the carbon tax with incentives proposal I am putting forward.

    More later.
    On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • To maxx at 8:53

    You start by saying that there CAN be certainty in achieving the CAP goals, IF we start with an undefined, yet infallible, setting of the CAP.
    A business will "theoretically" know in 2012 what its costs will be thirty years later?
    Ummmmm.
    Excuse me?
    Wanna bet?
    Are you hiding everything behind "theoretically"?

    You've seen the bills out there.
    Are any of them acceptable to your definition of proper design?
    I hope not.

    You then posit that the proposed penalties ensure that power producers will not "choose" to fail to meet their obligations.
    Ever heard of RPS?
    They are doubling the cost of electricity in some areas.
    Renewable projects do not get built because of mandates.(CAPs and penalties).
    "Things" get in the way.
    Like unavailable technology.
    Like NIMBYs.
    Like regulatory uncertainty.
    The utilities don't "choose" to avoid renewables.
    But, there are none getting built.
    Again, the cost of the policy failure DOUBLES the price of power supply to consumers.
    This is what I want to avoid with the, yes, flexibility, of a carbon tax.

    Just like you say, there is no technology yet for a lot of things we're going to need.
    Every one of your negative observations about the carbon tax apply equally, if not more so, in spades, to a C&T solution.
    What happens to the value of the pollution permit when those technology, or material supply bottlenecks show up in five years?
    Do the free marketers give that old knife in your back a little twist, just to make sure you get the message?

    Unless carbon sequestration has a breakthrough this week, it will not be available before 2020 on power plants, even for retrofit.
    Without CCS, coal plants would either have to shut down or to pay 3X the price for the allowance.
    Which is what price, maxx?

    You state we don't have the correct formulas for modeling the answer to that question when it applies to the carbon tax.
    Again, in spades for the C&T.
    Nobody knows.
    It depends.
    Same with the carbon tax.

    You keep implying that without knowing RIGHT HERE AND NOW what the annual carbon tax rate will be, my position is fatally flawed somehow.
    But the C&Ters can let the market decide, and whatever it is, is fine.

    Well, I remember Enron.
    And I remember Bear Stearns.
    And I remember what I paid for gas last evening.
    Screw the market.
    Or the market screws you.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • To david mack at 12:43am.

    Get some sleep!
    I can see that you have accepted Sean's OBS arguments.
    I am definitely not there yet.
    But I try to read each post open-mindedly.
    And I apologize if sometimes my comments seem off-key.

    There are a couple of threads to this thread.
    Distrust of government solutions.
    Certainty is the only acceptable option.
    The market is imperfectly infallible.
    At least compared to government.
    Today, those of us who want to posit public policy solutions for public policy problems have our hands full.

    Energy-wise, I am sure y'all have heard of the REA and BPA and the FPA, etc.
    I am a former electric co-op and municipal utility manager/ceo.
    I have seen, and done, what is collectively possible when good people work together to good ends.
    I have worked on behalf of consumers for a good part of my life trying to do exactly the things that Sean is doing, and wants to do in the carbon constrained future.
    So I am not afraid of advocating solutions that involve the PEOPLE of this country, acting through their government.

    You guys are rallying around something called "efficient incentives for clean energy".
    Well, so am I.
    As such, your criticism of the carbon tax as a "stick without a carrot" is meaningless to me.

    It IS a fact that nobody has floated a bill that includes the carbon tax and a package of socially responsible "efficient incentives for clean energy".
    But, I am.
    What are we going to do with the tax money?
    It seems obvious the answer is a revolving-loan/grant fund, a.k.a. incentives, for clean energy.
    Here is where thee seems to be a disconnect.
    Something about a tax cut?????
    I am not advocating a carbon tax with a stick but no carrots.
    THAT is the straw man here.  
    The mainstream bills out there right now utilize a revenue stream funded by an auction of carbon allowances, or what I call pollution permits.

    They, in turn, use that revenue stream to fund the triplicate of :
    Appropriate Income-restoration
    Massive research in Technology Solutions
    An Appropriate-technology Investment Bank.

    If anyone thinks these are not what is needed to make progress on a carbon-balancing energy technology, then say WHY.
    I think they are appropriate - and represent the manifestation of my "revolving loan/grant fund for clean energy.

    Only, I am funding it with the carbon tax that the PEOPLE are paying, and I am developing solutions for those same people, at the lowest cost. On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • to David Mack at 4:55 PM

    You seem to be asking ME for an answer to why the CBO did not compare the policy option of Sean's "output-based standard"(OBS) to the ones I describe below.

    Carbon Dioxide Tax
    Cap With Safety Valve and Either Banking or a Price Floor    
    Cap With Banking and Either a Circuit Breaker or Managed Borrowing  
    Inflexible Cap

    The CBO study was prepared in response to the request of the Chair of the Senate Committee  on Energy and Natural Resources, so I guess I can give him a call and ask for an expansion of the analysis.

    Below are the comments on the criteria used in the CBO evaluation:
    "In this study, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) compares these incentive-based approaches, focusing on three key criteria:
    A Efficiency in maintaining a balance between the uncertain benefits and costs of reducing CO2emissions,
    B Ease or difficulty of implementation, and
    C Possible interactions with other countries' policies for curbing CO2--that is, the potential to ensure that U.S. and foreign policies produce similar incentives to cut emissions inside and outside the United States.

    It can be seen that their approach is not certainty, but to maintain a balance between uncertain benefits and uncertain costs.

    Good enough for government work, and good enough for me.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • To maxx at 2;55

    You start out asking for my carbon tax level.
    The CBO study uses an estimate of the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction, which should be equal to the cost of the allowance, at any given point in time.
    That's good enough for me.
    What will you get for an auction price in year one?
    Same thing.
    Oh, you don't know what the price will be?
    Me, neither.

    Importantly, the tax level is capable of being decreased if technology is not available to meet the goals.
    It is capable of being increased if the options for reduction are right there on the shelf, or in the carbon marketplace like the recyclers.
    Banking can occur at any level of this discussion.
    What it is not, is certain.
    There is no "certain ironclad method" to any of this.
    The path to 80 percent reductions over 40 years begins with but a single step.
    Massive investments in energy efficiency at all levels.

    Now, I am sorry if I misled you with my quote from the CBO study, maxx.
    So, just to be clear, the options that were analyzed were:
    Carbon Dioxide Tax
    Cap With Safety Valve and Either Banking or a Price Floor    
    Cap With Banking and Either a Circuit Breaker or Managed Borrowing  
    Inflexible Cap

    It can be seen that there was no straw man subterfuge either by the CBO or me.
    And, contrary to your comment, they analyzed every option that I have yet seen in any of the bills. Not that more work doesn't need doing.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • This is to maxx8806 at 10:55.

    C&t vs, Carbon tax results.

    There is no way of knowing the future.
    Whether by setting a cap, or by setting a tax, or by betting based on output standards, the achievement of the goals CANNOT be guaranteed.

    With a Cap/Trade program it is very easy to NOT be achieving the CAP outputs, while paying an exorbitant price to pollute. Technology would need to be available to be invested in by those with a dog in the fight.

    Without carbon sequestration, coal plants will continue to operate for the simple reason that Americans are intolerant of power outages. A couple of years out in the "trading" market and those coal plant producers will pay dearly for the allowances they will need to buy, but there will be no option. And the consumers of those kWh produced by those plants will pay dearly for their power.

    Can you guarantee that will not happen? Can you insure it?

    Ironically, you use this argument against the carbon tax, when it is true for all other options as well.

    So, any path toward our carbon goals will be fraught with uncertainty, just like a lot of other things in this world. You are not sacrificing "the whole point of the program" by any stretch of the imagination.

    If you want to write the insurance policy for the certainty you describe, "ensuring a necessary level of reductions in a certain defined time frame", then I will be your first buyer.

    But it is way over-simplistic to imply that any choice of policy options is going to guarantee your desired goals.
    On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • Sorry for the interruption, Sean

    OK, so we agree to disagree on the means.
    I pointed out the CBO found the carbon tax to be the most `efficient' (quicker and cheaper) means of achieving the goals.
    Maybe you mean something different than "cheaper" when you say lower allowance prices.

    You take issue with the "political" nature of the tax.
    On the one hand you say it is "extremely flawed" `subject to political whim'.
    On the other, you say, it doesn't adjust.
    Of course, it will be set to adjust, and it will be further adjustable over time.

    I assume you have read the CBO study:
    "Relative to a cap-and-trade program with pre-specified
    emission limits each year, a steadily rising tax could better
    accommodate cost fluctuations while simultaneously
    achieving a long-term target for emissions.
    Such a tax would provide firms with an incentive to undertake more
    emission reductions when the cost of doing so was relatively
    low, and allow them to reduce emissions less when
    the cost of doing so was particularly high.
    In contrast, an inflexible cap-and-trade program would require that
    annual caps were met regardless of the cost, thereby
    failing to take advantage of low-cost opportunities to cut
    more emissions than were required by the cap and failing
    to provide firms with leeway in years when costs were
    higher."
    So, I don't get your point.
    Unless, it's just that we don't trust the government.

    You say it is a stick without a carrot.
    I don't understand.
    There's a flow of revenues.
    Consider the revenue from the Auction option.
    Consider the carbon tax.
    Same thing. Same size carrot.

    What do we do with the revenue?
    Incentivize.

    "The most efficient approaches to reducing emissions of CO2 involve giving businesses and
    households an economic incentive for such reductions. Such an incentive could be provided
    in various ways, including a tax on emissions."

    "This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study--prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--compares those policy options on the basis of three key criteria: their potential to reduce emissions efficiently, to be implemented with relatively low administrative costs, and to create incentives for emission reductions that are consistent with incentives in other countries."

    "The policy options described above differ in their potential
    to reduce emissions efficiently, to be implemented
    with relatively low administrative costs, and to create
    incentives for emission reductions that are consistent
    with incentives in other countries. CBO draws the following
    conclusions:
    A tax on emissions would be the most efficient
    incentive-based option for reducing emissions and
    could be relatively easy to implement."

    So, again, you take issue with the political nature of the tax.

    I take issue with the greed-driven nature(highest ROI now) of the market traders who would hold the carbon futures and trade them UP over the next forty years.

    I definitely prefer to have the flexibility of watching over the annual review of the level of the carbon tax being set as part of the ongoing "political" business of the country, in which we ALL participate.

    That is, as opposed to having the invisible hand of the free-marketeers who have a proven track record of being willing to manipulate any market and any commodity for the good of those doing the betting.

    I recognize that debt-and equity markets LOVE those kinds of bets, especially when thy have a forty year market to bet them into. This is precisely why we should never allow those marketers to have the power to set the price of the American people achieving their public policy goals.
    On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • Sorry, Charles

    I do thank you for posting the CJLF article.

    But, with the utmost respect from a thankful, long-term fan, the CJLF has it all over the CTC on this.

    As a 'carbon-tax-now' advocate, I fail to comprehend the veracity of the CTC position.

    I believe it is the old "spoonful of honey makes the medicine go down" theory of political economics.

    Congressional leaders disdain for doing their job by acquiescing to a "centrist", 'representation without taxation' position, causes advocates to include  some "honey" in their policy proposals.

    I have a hard time believing that you need to "cap-and-dividend' as a means of protecting the lower income among us (me included) from the perils of the cost of meeting our environmental stewardship responsibilities.

    And, then you need to find OTHER legislation to fund the solutions to the problem? Who is going to pay for that legislation and those solutions?

    And, if you are going to craft that "other" legislation in a manner that ensures that it will not get siphoned off to non-carbon-reduction uses, well, you can craft the same protection into any bill.

    Finally, I really do not understand how you can say that you will have a carbon tax set at a sufficient level to incentivize carbon reduction actions by polluters, while saying ALL of that tax revenue is needed to offset the economic impacts from those activities on lower income Americans.

    So, the ONLY socio-economic benefit of all that taxing is a redistribution of wealth?

    You are right on the carbon tax issue.
    But, we would all be well served if the CTC got behind the CJLF "tactic" for funding the solution to the problem. Their proposal is for doing the right thing. Now.

    Respectfully,
    Joe Bongiovanni
    Harborton, Virginia
    On National environmental justice coalition blasts cap-and-trade, backs carbon tax posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

  • Very well said.

    I haven't read the other comments yet.
    But your point is completely lost on a lot of environmentalists.
    This is why the Cap-and-trade is the wrong mechanism to fund the CC solution.
    We don't want the highest cost for solving the problems.
    We want the lowest cost.
    Because we are all consumers of the solutions.

    The CBO found the carbon tax to be the vehicle for achieving our CC goals quickest and cheapest.
    Now, if any fellow enviros know any good reason why we should be pursuing a slower and more costly mechanism in pursuit of these goals, please say why that is.
    Achieving the reductions depends on a lot of technology that is not available yet, and that will be in desperate need of serious volumes of dollars - all of which must ultimately come from consumers and taxpayers.
    When it comes to solving the CC problem, cost does matter.
    And, if we do not address the cost issue, not only the Repugs but also some Dems will prevent us getting serious CC bills passed any time soon.
    We need to get started NOW - actually yesterday.
    Carbon Tax Now.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

  • Cap and Dividend is Cap and Trade

    Sounds better.
    I guess I am the socialist in the crowd. (Not really)

    But the carbon tax is the cheapest and quickest means to get to our solutions.
    So says the CBO, not EPRI, here.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf

    Anybody who thinks this is wrong should say why.

    The almost unspoken word of the "auctionistas" is the marketing of carbon allowances.
    After they're auctioned, they're traded.
    Carbon futures.
    They're buying them up right now.
    If you like Enron (mark-to-market), hedge funds and energy speculators, then keep pushing any of those nice-sounding "dividend" options.

    To my mind, they are BS.
    What is wrong with the carbon tax.

    OH! It's a tax.

    The problem with carbon, so they say, is that it is killing our planet.
    So, its planetary.
    Why would we inhabitants/citizens not expect OURSELVES to pay for solving the problem?

    And if a carbon tax can do it cheaper and quicker, why are we even discussing going with the slower and more expensive options?

    I am afraid of a government screw-up, but most especially because the government has abdicated its responsibilities to "privatization", with the aid and abetting of the environmental community.

    Carbon tax now. On Peter Barnes' carbon policy proposal would not spur the economic changes we need posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

  • Inadequate Criticism

    The gist is that we CAN'T need more coal if we do things right.
    The biggest criticism of the EPRI study is its findings of how fast we can implement nuclear power.
    If you believe we can do more efficiency than 1.1 percent, say how it is possible.
    Most of the increase in power needs in the EPRI study come from the PHEVs.
    We are solving our liquid carbon problem, and substituting for nuclear and advanced coal.
    But, I am running a theme here.
    It is not our coal.
    It is not our oil.
    It is owned before it comes out of the ground by folks who have bought the future rights to it.
    It will me mined and shipped SOMEWHERE.
    It will be burned either as CLEAN as we can, or as DIRTY as they can.
    Those are the real choices.
    We need carbon CCS solutions as soon as possible.
    And,  IF , the world economy continues to grow, at the level assumed in the EPRI forecast, then we will need more coal.On Really? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

  • The repugs are right

    Of course the costs will be passed on to consumers.
    Either in rates or in taxes.
    This is undeniable.
    Where else does the money come from?
    Increasing business expenses, like through taxes and fees, just get passed on to the consumers of those businesses.
    The right approach is to "embrace" the fact that we all must pay the cost of solving public policy dilemmas like the environment, health and education, and what we need is a proper 'accounting", if you will, of the pass-through of the funds.
    Gonna cost Trillions to solve Carbon, let's get a budget and a plan together and get at it.
    The benefits of the policies will endure to the consumers and taxpayers.
    How could we not expect the consumers and taxpayers to pay for it?On Boucher and Upton introduce bipartisan legislation to invest in carbon sequestration technology posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

  • The Planet needs CCS

    There are some no-such-thing-as-clean-coal types of comments.
    Head in the sand is the way I see it.
    VERY important to get started right away on solving carbon sequestration if we want to do anything about carbon.
    For those who think we can stop the use of coal by slowing down the development of technological solutions on carbon, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
    That is not our coal.
    Just like it is not our oil.
    You can keep it in the ground by nationalizing it, which i think we should do either way.
    Absent that, it will be mined, shipped and burned somewhere.
    If not the US, then in some other country with or without CCS.
    You can't stop mountaintop mining or killing valleys and streams and coal miners by having your head in the sand.
    Either we nationalize coal, or we better be damned sure that we develop carbon sequestration technology ASAP.On Boucher and Upton introduce bipartisan legislation to invest in carbon sequestration technology posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses