Comments Jesse Jenkins has made

  • @Steveh: It was not my intent "to make character attack (sic)" on Romm by referring to him as "Mr." That was unintentional and Dr. Romm has my apologies for that. I'm awaiting his apologies for inaccurately slandering my work, at various points accusing me and my colleagues of lying and plagiarism, and referring to me as "a leading disinformer." I won't hold my breath though.On Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 13 Responses
  • Well I certainly understand the importance of election-day efforts, but I'd be remiss to not note that other than slander, ad hominem attacks, and incorrect information, Mr. Romm provides no actual instances where the Breakthrough Institute's analysis is incorrect or in error. My analysis has been widely cited by journalists, Congressmen and advocates and is corroborated on numerous fronts. Romm unfortunately insists on trashing our work at every turn, which contributes little to our mutually-desired 'climate progress.' If you're interested, once election day is passed, you can find several factual rebuttals to Romm's screeds below. The fact is, Romm simply gets lots of this stuff wrong, including his characterization of our work. I'd love to engage on substance rather than character attacks: http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/07/joe_romm_ignores_facts_in_atta.shtml http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/05/romm_attacks_breakthrough_for.shtml http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/04/is_joe_romm_an_energy_challeng.shtmlOn Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 13 Responses
  • Auden, I'd love to think Congress was ruled by any sense of what's scientifically necessary. But I think we both know that's not the case. I too am motivated by the same sense of critical urgency you describe. I've devoted my career to finding solutions that can avert climate catastrophe and seize the urgent opportunities of a clean and sustainable energy economy. But those solutions have to work in the real world, and so I devote my attention and effort to solutions that can operate within our political system, that can be quickly established, and create self-sustaining and self-accelerating political momentum. That's what I've described above. Others see fatal flaws in our current body politic and so work to change it, through organizing, electoral reform and protest. Both strategies are valid and likely needed in some capacity. But both begin from a recognition that our current political system will NOT deliver the kind of binding cap on emissions you seem to think is around the corner. It's not. The current climate bills in Congress will allow firms to offset enough emissions to continue with BAU practices and investments until as late as 2037. It will not make significant investments to catalyze clean and efficient energy technologies. And because of the political constraints we've been over before, the carbon price signal it establishes will be low, just $10-20/ton CO2, or the equivalent of just 10-20 cents per gallon of gasoline, for at least the next decade. See http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/06/aces_analysis_full_breakthroug.shtml and http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/10/greenpeace_climate_legislation.shtml If you think the Obama administration will implement economy-wide limits on greenhouse gases through the EPA, you're also overly-optimistic (to put it kindly). At best, EPA will establish requirements for the use of "best available control technology" (not currently defined) and/or emissions performance standards (in tons/MWh) for NEW or retrofitted major point source emitters (>25,000 tons CO2 per year). There will be no limits on emissions from existing sources, nor any economy-wide limits. Those are the rules EPA is already moving ahead with establishing (and which the House climate bill will preempt). See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html?_r=1&hp; The Administration and EPA already done their thing for vehicles (in the form of new fuel economy standards), which while they are great step forward, are still modest compared to where the EU, Japan and China are at already. Despite his lovely rhetoric, I see absolutely zero indication that Obama is willing to wield EPA authority like a club to establish economy-wide limits on emissions, again for the same political constraints that bind the efficacy of any command and control regulatory approach or carbon pricing strategy like cap and trade or carbon taxes. We need to either find solutions that work within our current political realities - and by work, I mean put the U.S. and world on a path to avert damaging climate change and transform our global energy system - or work hard to change current political realities. Any other approach I worry will ultimately fail, as the current Congressional climate legislation strategy is bound to do.On Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 13 Responses
  • Auden: Thanks for the response. I welcome (and advocate) a low and gradually rising carbon price that will increase energy prices over time. But that price, as you note, will start low to remain politically sustainable. And it's primary purpose, as it is with ETO, will be to invest in clean and efficient energy technologies to drive climate mitigation and a transition to a cleaner energy system. The carbon price itself will be first and foremost a funding source and secondarily a supportive, but not overly impactful, market price signal. Over time, if these investments are structured correctly, they will both reduce people's energy consumption and make clean energy technologies cheaper. The latter trend will mean we will require a lower carbon price in the future to fully catalyze a clean energy transition, and the second will ensure that if per unit energy prices increase due to a gradually rising carbon price, overall energy bills will barely take note. Both will help ensure that energy prices remain politically sustainable. If we fail to keep them politically sustainable, we face public backlash, the gutting of climate and clean energy strategies, and the stalling of critical progress. Thus, a low and gradually increasing price on carbon - or on energy consumption, as in the ETO public purpose charge - used primarily to fund investments in clean and efficient energy technologies, is the course to accelerating and effective climate action. I hope you'll agree, and also take note of how this approach differs from the approach generally envisioned by carbon price and cap and trade (or dividend) advocates, who consider the carbon price itself the primary objective, as an effort to close externalities and provide the "accurate market signals" that will cement a clean energy transition." I contend that that approach both lacks political viability and ignores multiple non-price-signal-related barriers to both clean energy and efficiency (which I'm sure the ETO staff could espouse on at great length). It will therefore fail on both political and substantive grounds and alternative approaches are sorely needed. For more, see http://thebreakthrough.org. Cheers, JesseOn Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 13 Responses
  • Auden, great article in general. The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) is a model for the world and the intrepid folks who work there are stellar. ETO is Oregon's answer to decoupling: don't expect utilities to get excellent at efficiency. It's not their core business (producing, transmitting and selling energy). So instead of decoupling rates to try to get utilities into the efficiency business, create a public non-profit like ETO, give them what the utilities were expected to spend on efficiency anyway, and have them hire a whole team of experts who's core focus is to help Oregonians save energy. They've been remarkably successful. ETO also has a division designed to spur clean energy sources in the state, helping cover above-market costs for technologies in the early stages of launch. That's a big part of how the first few utility-scale wind farms in Oregon got built, and once they were up, and people could go "kick the tires" and see that they worked, didn't shut off the lights and were good for our economy, things went rolling from there. However, I'm going to have to call BS on this remark: "Energy Trust is funded to the tune of $130 million annually through a public purpose charge on Oregonians’ utility bills. That alone is arguably part of a solution to climate change—it’s a price signal on energy costs that will force people to conserve. (By the way—it’s also a sign of things to come, and the program’s enormous success puts the lie to the delusional notion that to solve climate we need to make energy cheap (that might happen one day, but first it will have to get expensive. No freebies on this one, techno-optimists.)" That is most certainly NOT the intent - nor the practical effect - of the 3% public purpose charge that funds the ETO. First, the 3% charge was more or less the amount ratepayers were already paying utilities for efficiency programs. Rates didn't go up much at all when the charge was instated, and it was designed specifically to stay small enough not to trigger backlash - i.e. to be small enough most people don't know its even there. Ask an average Oregonian and I bet 9 out of 10 have no idea it's even there. Second, a 3% charge is hardly a motivator for conservation. I'd put the onus on you to show any indication that the public purpose charge has spurred conservation through it's price signal. Similarly, a $10-15 per ton CO2 price, like the one we're going to get out of Kerry-Boxer or Waxman-Markey (according to EPA) isn't going to spur much conservation either. That's 10-15 cents per gallon of gas, hardly out of the noise of normal fluctuations in gas prices and not much (if anything) more than the typical difference between the price of gas at two different stations in the same part of town. If you're a carbon price proponent looking for a model of what the future should hold in your mind - i.e. higher prices for dirty energy that spur conservation and encourage cleaner energy - ETO and the Oregon public purpose charge isn't it. It's more an example of the exact opposite approach, a proactive investment driven approach to spurring clean energy and efficiency of the kind advocated by the Breakthrough Institute, where this Oregonian ex patriot now works (see http://thebreakthrough.org/ideas.shtml) Instead of trying to make dirty energy more expensive to change consumer behavior and make clean energy sources relatively cheaper, the public purpose charge and the Energy Trust of Oregon is a model of the exact opposite: let's raise as much money as we can without triggering public backlash, and invest it directly in the things we want to see happen - busting barriers to efficiency down and spurring the accelerated commercialization and deployment of clean energy sources, helping establish economies of scale and learning by doing to make clean energy cheaper in real, unsubsidized terms. That's a strategy that can work in the world we live in: the one were the public doesn't want higher energy prices and doesn't like to be told we're jacking up their rates to change their behavior. As environmentalists, we may want to see that kind of action, but if we can see the same goals realized - the kinds of goals advanced effectively by ETO - through a fee and proactive investment model that can make clean energy cheaper over time, that's the route we should be going. Given my experience with the ETO (I served on their Renewables Advisory Committee for about a year and worked with ETO staff for a couple years on Oregon renewable energy issues), that's the lesson from Oregon. It's also a lesson of hope. In that, we're in 100% agreement. Bravo to ETO and their staff. Jesse Jenkins Director of Energy and Climate Policy Breakthrough Institute: http://thebreakthrough.orgOn Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago 13 Responses
  • Hey David, Thanks for the reply. I of course agree with you in all of that. I just get concerned when you and other writers repeat uncritically statements, like those of Stavins here, that retrench bogus assumptions only true, as you note, in ivory tower economic thought. I knew you didn't agree with that kind of thinking, which is why I pushed back. We also shouldn't forget that every dollar of auction revenue re-invested in emissions-reducing clean energy technology is a dollar less we need to pay in direct compliance costs. It makes the carbon dollars due double duty, first as a price signal, and second as a direct investment in emissions abatement and clean energy, which lowers the overall CO2 price needed to do the same job. That in turn reduces the economic dislocations associated with higher energy prices and the wealth transfers associated with allowance value (which is now reduced since CO2 prices would be lower) which cause the economic and social justice issues you discuss above. You could say then that there's a strong instrumental argument for much greater reinvestment of allowance revenues in clean energy: it reduces CO2 prices needed to accomplish the same climate and clean energy objectives; reduces increased energy prices that are the greatest concern for both industrial energy users and low-income folks; and, since we know carbon prices need some serious help to be effective, it should ultimately lead to a more rapid transition to a clean and prosperous energy economy. So sure, dividends are better than money for frakin' merchant coal plants! But reinvestment in clean energy technology and infrastructure is by far the best use of allowance revenues, once direct protections for low-income Americans are ensured. JesseOn Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses
  • David, you write: "The key fact to understand is that the distribution of allowances doesn’t change the overall cost or environmental effectiveness of the program (at least according to mainstream economics)." I've also read you rail in the past at the shortsightedness and idiocy of "mainstream economics" and call for significant investments in the establishment of a clean energy infrastructure and new clean technologies. You should know (you've said as much before) that a price signal from a carbon cap and trade system alone will not drive the deep reductions in emissions and rapid transition to a clean energy system we need. Given that fact, the use of the allowances to further additional efforts that spur those emissions cuts or drive that transition to clean energy clearly influences the overall cost and environmental effectiveness of the program. If we were maxing out investments in clean energy technology and infrastructure, forestry preservation, global clean tech transfer etc. separately from the cap and trade title, your statement may be true. But we're not and you know that. Besides allowance allocations, where are we going to get the tens of billions annually we need to invest in a clean energy economy here at home and the tens of billions more we should be contributing to clean global development and forestry preservation abroad? Tell me that, and I'll be fine with your parroting "mainstream economics" talking points that the allocation of allowances doesn't matter. Until then, I have to assume we both know that's bunk. All the best, Jesse Jenkins p.s. none of that is to undercut your very valid points about allowance allocations clearly involving the redistribution of wealth, and therefore having clear social justice ramifications. In agreement there.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses
  • Miles, I'd imagine we'll see giveaways to both coal and nukes to reach 60, don't you? Susan, you are of course correct about the Republican's hypocrisy on the PTC and ITC. But time to call their bluff, eh? They put it in their "all of the above" bill. If we're giving them anything for oil and nukes, we'd better make it a true "all of the above" plan and include their recommendations on the PTC and ITC for renewables too, right?On How Senate Dems should lure GOP to a climate bill posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses
  • So I spent an hour today leafing through the Republican "alternative" energy bill introduced in the House in June to see what exactly these Rs want for nukes and oil. It was like stepping into bizarro world. Here's what I found: On Oil: allow drilling on the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the arctic coastal plain (aka parts of ANWR). Extend state waters to 12 miles offshore (they are currently 3 miles, except in the Gulf I think, where it may be 12 already) so they have "an incentive to allow production in their waters, as they would receive a larger share of royalties." 75% of revenues would go to states if lease is offshore within 12 miles of their shore, 50% if farther than 12 miles from shore or in the Arctic plain . Interestingly enough, it looks like 90% of the remaining federal share of the royalties - or 22.5-45% of total royalty revenues depending on location - would go to a "Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund" to fund clean energy research and deployment. Now that's not a bad idea. If we're going to give them the OCS, we should get the revenues for clean energy, so we can make oil obsolete. Sweetens the pot on what you already consider not too much of a concession (although I imagine you'd have a harder time conceding ANWR than the OCS). On Nukes: the big things they want are 1) to fast track the regulatory process to take 2 years time (now it usually takes 4 yrs) for new nukes using plant designs already certified by the NRC at sites adjacent to already operating reactors (and that meet a couple of other common sense criteria). 2) State that it is the goal of U.S. energy policy to build 100 new nukes by 2030, but they make clear this "would not mandate new reactors are built" (so who cares?). 3) extend the 30% Investment Tax Credit available to solar and other renewables to new nukes and 4) keep Yucca Mountain on the table. I don't see anything immediately wrong with 1 or 2. 3 seems in line with your "give them money not architecture or mandates" idea. 4 just simply won't fly while Reid is majority leader, so hopefully that isn't the end of this whole idea. All in all, not that scary if it what you want is a climate bill with 60 bipartisan votes, eh? Now the rest of the Republican's "American Energy Act" contains a ton of shite for oil shale and the like. But it also includes provisions to make the PTC and ITC for renewables permanent, so maybe that should be part of any deal with Rs as well. If we're going to take a couple of their bad ideas, why not take a couple good ones as well, eh?On How Senate Dems should lure GOP to a climate bill posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses
  • So I spent an hour today leafing through the Republican "alternative" energy bill introduced in the House in June to see what exactly these Rs want for nukes and oil. It was like stepping into bizarro world. Here's what I found: On Oil: allow drilling on the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the arctic coastal plain (aka parts of ANWR). Extend state waters to 12 miles offshore (they are currently 3 miles, except in the Gulf I think, where it may be 12 already) so they have "an incentive to allow production in their waters, as they would receive a larger share of royalties." 75% of revenues would go to states if lease is offshore within 12 miles of their shore, 50% if farther than 12 miles from shore or in the Arctic plain . Interestingly enough, it looks like 90% of the remaining federal share of the royalties - or 22.5-45% of total royalty revenues depending on location - would go to a "Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund" to fund clean energy research and deployment. Now that's not a bad idea. If we're going to give them the OCS, we should get the revenues for clean energy, so we can make oil obsolete. Sweetens the pot on what you already consider not too much of a concession (although I imagine you'd have a harder time conceding ANWR than the OCS). On Nukes: the big things they want are 1) to fast track the regulatory process to take 2 years time (now it usually takes 4 yrs) for new nukes using plant designs already certified by the NRC at sites adjacent to already operating reactors (and that meet a couple of other common sense criteria). 2) State that it is the goal of U.S. energy policy to build 100 new nukes by 2030, but they make clear this "would not mandate new reactors are built" (so who cares?). 3) extend the 30% Investment Tax Credit available to solar and other renewables to new nukes and 4) keep Yucca Mountain on the table. I don't see anything immediately wrong with 1 or 2. 3 seems in line with your "give them money not architecture or mandates" idea. 4 just simply won't fly while Reid is majority leader, so hopefully that isn't the end of this whole idea. All in all, not that scary if it what you want is a climate bill with 60 bipartisan votes, eh? Now the rest of the Republican's "American Energy Act" contains a ton of shite for oil shale and the like. But it also includes provisions to make the PTC and ITC for renewables permanent, so maybe that should be part of any deal with Rs as well. If we're going to take a couple of their bad ideas, why not take a couple good ones as well, eh?On How Senate Dems should lure GOP to a climate bill posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • Yeah, pretty interesting, eh? No surprise, I come out as a "Strong Innovation Economics" person. As you can see when you complete the test, the vast majority of respondents come out as Neo-liberal Rubinomics types or as Supply Sider Reaganite types. Hence David's point about the need for some new economic ideas! Sean, you should check out some of Atkinson's writings. Cheers, Jesse

    On If progressives want a Clean Energy Bank, they need better economics posted 3 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

  • "Liberals really need to start thinking about trying to mainstream some alternative economic approaches (e.g., ecological economics, or even behavioral economics). Otherwise they’re constantly going to be in the position of advocating for policies that get them tut-tutted by economists and Blue Dogs alike."

    Indeed progressive do need to mainstream some alternative economic approaches.  That also cuts against our repeated dogma surrounding cap and trade and carbon taxes.  The concept that the market will efficiently and ideally solve our climate, innovation and economic challenges is what has motivated so much of the cap and trade push.  It's market fundamentalism meets pollution regulation.  And it's not sufficient to spur a clean energy revolution (as you've written before David).

    I've found the works of Rob Atkinson and the Information Technology and innovation Foundation quite instructive and helpful as an "alternative economic approach" well deserving of mainstream (or at least progressive) attention.  See www.innovationeconomics.org  www.itif.org and the Wikipedia entry here.  Head here to take a quiz and see what type of economic philosophy you hold.

    On If progressives want a Clean Energy Bank, they need better economics posted 3 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses
  • Thanks for the somber thoughts Dave. This is a tough road to 60 votes for sure, and one we should have seen coming and internalized a long time ago. I think there's been a lot of "Obama will change everything" thinking going on since the Lieberman-Warner debate in 2008, on through the election and the "First 100 Days" of the new "Change Administration." But we've seen, as we should have back in summer 2008, when we got a clear preview of the politics of cap and trade, that this was going to run smack dab into a brick wall in the U.S. Senate. In the face of these procedural and political hurdles, we seem to only have two options: radicalize grassroots efforts in an attempt to change the political game, or develop new policy strategies that can succeed in this political environment. I've personally been focused on the latter in my job, but many have focused on the former as well. And a hefty dose of both is probably necessary. In a situation like we're in today, I worry we can't succeed into we internalize our failures to date. Thanks for 'keeping it real.'On Netroots Nation frustration and the impediments to progressive change posted 3 months, 1 week ago 13 Responses

  • "I’ve long thought that the message framing around renewable energy is much more appealing (Let’s make clean energy cheaper!  Build the industries of the future!  Cool technology and jobs for everyone!  It’ll be like the dotcom boom all over again!  But without the dumb names!) than that of carbon cap-and-trade (Let’s put a price on carbon!  Make fossil fuels more expensive!)."


    Adam, you sound a lot like my Breakthrough Institute team!  We obviously agree with all of that.  We'd love your comments and thoughts at www.theBreakthrough.org

    On Renewable energy is more exciting than cap-and-trade! posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • For related content, see also: "The Sherrod Brown Test: Finding Consensus on Climate Policy"

    On Ohio's Sen. Brown calls for investments in clean energy manufacturing posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response

  • For more on Senator Brown's stance, and what we need to do to win him over, see this post from the Grist archives:

    The Sherrod Brown test: Finding consensus on climate policy

    On Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) posted 4 months ago 2 Responses

  • This is probably because ARPA-e is only funded through stimulus funds which run out after 2010.  The FY2010 Energy and Water Appropriations budget only gives ARPA-e $15 million I believe, which is clearly not a lot to fund grants that support innovative American ideas and inventions.  The Waxman-Markey (ACES) bill includes some funding for ARPA-e, roughly $770m a year, which is a heck of a lot better than $15m.  But for comparison, DARPA, upon which ARPA-e is modeled, recieved over $3 billion in funding in FY2009.  We've got to get a grasp on the scale of our energy innovation challenge.  If we were serious about clean energy innovation, we'd be investing on the order of $15b annually in energy R&D (and much more spur the deployment of emerging technologies).  Again, for comparison, the National Institutes of Health recieves over $30 billion a year to help advance medical science and technology.  That is what a real commitment to American innovation looks like.

    China, South Korea and Japan are all redoubling (re-tripling or re-quadrupling may be more accurate) their efforts to spur domestic clean energy industries, building on their stimulus investments by launching major, sustained clean energy investment programs. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States allocated over $60 billion to be spent over two years spurring clean energy innovation (including ARPA-e) and building American clean energy industries -- an excellent start. Yet the Waxman-Markey bill would slash that level of commitment by two-thirds. Romm is apparently content with letting U.S. investments in clean energy technologies and industries lapse. The Breakthrough Institute is not. It's time for the government to summon a vigorous commitment to clean energy innovation and new American clean energy industries.  That is, after all, what our op ed called for in the first place.

    On Will America lose the clean-energy race? Only if we listen to The Breakthrough Institute posted 4 months ago 5 Responses

  • I'm reminded of the piece I wrote back in April for Grist, "The Sherrod Brown Test: Finding Consensus on Climate Policy."  It seems there has been very little effort (or at least effective effort) from the architects of this bill to actually form a proactive strategy to find common ground and secure the support of this group of moderate Democratic Senators. 

    We've all had plenty of repeated warnings from these Senators, McCaskill chief among them, that they will not support a toothy carbon pricing bill.  They've been telling us that in no uncertain terms since they rejected Lieberman-Warner bill back in June 2008.  The writing has been on the wall sense then (and largely ignored): if you're counting on high carbon prices or a binding cap on carbon emissions to transform the U.S. energy system, you'll find no success in the U.S. Senate. 

    We've had a full year to develop a Plan B, a strategy (both policy and politics) that can succeed in transforming the way we make and use energy in this country and building a clean, prosperous energy economy without requiring a high carbon price.  My effort to develop such a plan, a plan that can pass the Sherrod Brown (or Claire McCaskill) Test can be found here and here.  But we've all had time to develop such a plan, including the chief architects of climate policy strategy in DC (which sadly does not include this policy analyst or his small think tank).  Now time has almost run out.  Will a change in strategy and policy be attempted in the Senate, or will we simply see the already concession-ridden and non-transformative ACES bill get even weaker and weaker to secure passage?  Given the urgency of the climate challenge, I hope desperately for the former and shudder to think of the results of the latter.

    Keep up the good writing Kate.

    On McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses

  • What incentives are we talking about exactly?  I'm an innovation optimist, IF the right incentives are in place.  But if only a fraction of the legally-permitted 2 billion tons of offsets are used each year, the cap and trade program this bill establishes will provide essentially zero incentive to transform the U.S. energy economy or drive clean energy innovation for a decade or two.  The bill's renewable electricity standard may not require any more renewable energy than is already expected under conservative BAU forecasts from the EIA (as you point out, EIA always lowballs those estimates), so it's no help either.  The bill's renewable energy and efficiency investments are just a fraction of what we invested in the stimulus bill, and the investments in R&D are an order of magnitude lower than what President Obama continues to promise on his website (i.e. ~$1b-1.5b in ACES vs $15b per year on his website and in his budget). 


    So again: I'm an innovation optimist, IF the right incentives are in place.  But what incentives exactly is this bill establishing?  How will it drive a clean energy technology revolution?  I'm all for faith.  But this just strikes me as silly.

    On Obama strategy on climate bill: get it passed, then let markets make the argument posted 5 months ago 5 Responses

  • Nice try shining the RES turd (nice French!).  And I appreciate the effort to cheer me up.

    The scenario you paint is one plausible scenario and would indeed be "a faint silver lining" to this otherwise pretty farcical RES. 

    Unfortunately, the bill could also result in nothing but transfer payments from states with low clean energy deployment to those with higher clean energy deployment (like Texas, California, etc. driven by state RESs).  John Wilson at SACE gets into this somewhat, and so does UCS (in their low deployment scenario).

    The problem: under the federal RES, two renewable energy credits/certificates (aka RECs) are created for every megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable electricity produced.  One can be used for compliance with a state RES and one for federal compliance with the RES.  If a utility in California or Texas, for example (or any other state with a state RES higher than this federal standard) needs 15 state RECs to comply with their state RES, they'll produce 15 units of renewable electricity.  They'll also get 15 federal RECs for the same electricity MWhs.  Now say they only need 10 to comply with the federal RES.  They now have 5 federal RECs they can sell to utilities in Tennessee or Georgia or Oklahoma and let those utilities off the hook from their federal requirements too. 

    That's a clear case of double counting but as the bill stands, it's up to each state with a state RES to decide if they want to let their utilities do this, or if they will require retirement of the excess federal RECs that match the state RECs required by their RES.  If they don't do that, states with RESs higher than the federal standard will only be helping other states w/out RESs comply with the federal standard.  It won't result in additional renewable electricity generation. 

    Why the heck would a state want to allow that?  Well, because their utilities will net the proceeds of those REC sales - hence the transfer payments from South and East to West and Midwest.  Their utilities will argue vociferously (as they did in Oregon when I was a renewable energy advocate there and had to deal with this issue the last time an RES was debated in Congress in 2007 and 2008) that they will use the proceeds to cut their customers' utility bills and that not opting to do this effectively means states are requiring higher rates for their customers (and they'd be bad bad people for doing that, right?!). 

    This is a fairly compelling argument that will have to be fought off in every state that has an RES exceeding the federal one (which is most of them).  In many of those states, it will likely be a losing battle, since Public Utility Commissions often put rates before any other priority (that's usually their top priority). 

    This turd stinks any way you step on it.

    On The faint silver lining of the Waxman-Markey clean-energy-mandates cloud posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • Thanks Sonia for the reply.  That's what I thought.  Rainforest Action Network and International Rivers came out with a report today very critical of the scale of offsets allowed by Markey-Waxman.  See this write-up at SolveClimate if you haven't yet.

    Here's an excerpt that gets at this issue:

    "Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union has been operating a carbon cap-and-trade scheme that has relied on offsets. Between 2008-2012, it is expected that 300 million tons of offsets will be needed to supply the demand each year, but most observers acknowledge that even that number of real offsets will be hard to find. The Waxman-Markey bill would create an eightfold demand on top of the existing market whose offset quality is already of questionable value.

    High quality credits means a cumbersome bureaucracy to weed out all the business-as-usual projects, which means few credits entering the market. If the market were to meet potential U.S. demand, however, it would mean a speedy approvals process and a relatively open door for the cheats.

    "We tried to be even-handed, but somebody has got to point out there are huge holes in the bill," Brune said. "And it will delay investments in the clean energy economy that the Obama administration wants.""

     

    It seems that even if, in principle, offsets can be legitimate, there is essentially no hope of creating a market that guarantees legitimacy of the reductions at the scales being considered by current legislation - e.g. the scales required to have much of an ability to control the costs of cap and trade programs (which is the point of including them in the legislation).  When used as a cost-containment mechanism, offsets are just a bunch of hot air, it would seem, and they siphon off critical auction revenue that can and should be reinvested in clean energy technology to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy in capped sectors.

    On Why the CDM should matter to the United States posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • Sonia, thanks for the thouhts on the CDM.  I'm curious what your thoughts are about the scale of offsets allowed in the current discussion draft of the Markey-Waxman climate bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The bill would allow 2 billion metric tons of offsets to be used in lieu of pollution allowances for compliance every year.  That seems to me like a massive number, far higher than could reasonably be expected to be certified, verified, additional, etc.  Or, put another way: even if we fix the CDM the way you propose, how large of a stream of credible offsets do you think it could supply to a U.S. cap and trade system (keeping in mind demand for the ETS and other trading systems across the globe as well as voluntary markets for offsets)?  Anywhere near 2 billion tons a year?  Thanks,

    Jesse Jenkin

    On Why the CDM should matter to the United States posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • David, I'm not sure why you are compelled to view this as a "myth." Maybe you take issue at the word "required."  As in, we shouldn't pin all of our hopes on "required" breakthroughs in energy technology. 

    Well, while we should certailny not wait to begin rapidly deploying off the shelf technologies immediately, the tone and implications of this post are that "we have all the technologies we need, all we lack is the political will."  That, my friend, is the real myth, according to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.  Certainly, if the world could summon untold political will to do whatever is necessary to tackle climate change, we would make do with the technologies we have today.  That much is basically a truism.  But while many technologies on the shelf today are ready to be scaled up dramatically, anyone with a clear-eyed view to the scale of the climate and energy challenge sees a a clear imperative to accelerate the pace of technological innovation in the energy sector, including efforts to spark transformational, non-incremental developments (aka "breakthroughs"). 

    And there's nothing inconsistent about that position.  The absurd position would be that we need to have all the technologies on the shelf today to transform the entire global energy system over the next fifty years in order to get started.  That's the myth you should be assaulting.  But by implying that innovation in the energy sector is not required, beyond minor incremental changes to on-the-shelf technologies, you ignore the scale of the energy challenge and do a disservice to those, like Chu, trying to summon the political will to tackle that critical aspect of the climate challenge.

    Whether speaking before reporters or the United States Senate, Secretary Chu has not been afraid to directly challenge the myth that today's energy technologies are all we'll need to power a sustainable and prosperous 21st century global economy, nor is he shy about calling for transformative technological innovations in the energy sector - even while he calls for the rapid deployment of current technologies at scale.

    Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a hearing in which the Secretary defended President Obama's plans to significantly increase public spending on clean energy innovation, Dr. Chu had this to say (sounding quite familiar):

    "Our previous investments in science led to the birth of the semiconductor, computer, and bio-technology industries that have added greatly to our economic prosperity. Now, we need similar breakthroughs on energy. We're already taking steps in the right direction, but we need to do more...

    Just as the Breakthrough Institute has repeatedly advocated, Secretary Chu called for public investments in both "transformational research" (as in, "game-changing, as opposed to merely incremental" - Chu's words, not mine) as well as "efforts to demonstrate next-generation technologies and to help deploy demonstrated clean energy technologies at scale." He then went on to pledge:

    "We will move forward on all of these fronts and more, as we invest in the transformational research to achieve breakthroughs that could revolutionize our Nation's energy future."

    You see, while Steven Chu understands clearly the scale and urgency of the climate challenge and can advocate immediate action, he also recognizes the potential of innovation to open drammatic new options in our efforts to build a sustainable and prosperous global energy system.  Secretary Chu simply has a faith that even as we begin to deploy the technologies available today, "science and technology can generate much better choices" in the critical effort to build a sustainable and prosperous global energy economy. "It has, consistently, over hundreds and hundreds of years," the new Energy Secretary said.  That faith in the potential of transformationla innovation stands in sharp contrast to the pessimism Joe Romm exhibits in the post you link to above.

    Chu's obviously not alone in this position. President Obama's chief science adviser John Holdren in a "required-reading" essay entitled "The Energy Innovation Imperative," sums up the energy/climate policy challenge this way:

    "The multiplicity of challenges at the intersection of energy with the economy, the environment, and international security--led by the oil-dependence and climate-change challenges just described--add up to a need for policies designed for two ends:

    1) to help society find and implement a satisfactory compromise among competing economic, environmental and security objectives--which includes trying to leave the biggest margins of safety against the biggest dangers--given the resources and technologies available at any given time, and

    2) to accelerate the processes of energy-technology innovation that, over time, can reduce the limitations of existing energy options, can bring new options to fruition, and thereby can reduce the tensions among energy-policy objectives and enable faster progress on the most critical ones. ...

    Without an accelerated transition to improved technologies, societies will find it increasingly difficult-- and in the end probably impossible--either to limit oil imports and oil dependence overall without incurring excessive economic and environmental costs or to provide the affordable energy needed for sustainable prosperity everywhere with-
    out intolerably disrupting the Earth's climate.

    I'm sorry David, but when it comes to energy innovation, you should probably take your queues from Steven Chu John Holdren and the wide body of other energy experts who recognize that both transformational innovation and the rapid deployment of existing technologies will be required to solve our energy challenge, not Joe Romm.

    On Myth: Tackling climate change requires fundamental technological breakthroughs posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • Ah shucks Joe...

    ...you almost almost admitted that the industry you shill for is the leading contributor to climate change.  Almost.  It was a great effort, and I really appreciate it. Really.

    While you're here, I'm wondering if you can tell me what "advance clean coal technologies" you are working on to stop the unequivocally dirty and horrendously devastating impacts of the mountaintop removal coal mining your industry practices?  I assume since you are a proponent of "clean" coal, you are in support of the Clean Water Protection Act introduced in Congress yesterday, which would reinstate sane environmental protections that, you know, prevent the dumping of entire mountains on top of streams and valleys.  I assume you'll join me in championing the Clean Water Protection Act to help clean up the coal industry...

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On 'Clean coal' flack won't say whether coal contributes to global warming posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Sorry for bad html!

    Here's the correct link:

    "Will Obama Put Real Money on the Table for Clean Energy?"

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

  • Hey Hapa...

    Hapa, thanks for pushing back on the basic assumptions that "fiscal responsibility" means cutting deficits.  It's been the "rule" for so long, and we've heard so much garbage about "balanced budgets" over the years, it's become "fact" that deficits are bad.  In reality, when the economic is in the shitter and private capital is stalled and frozen, the government is your spender and lender of last resort.  The only way we'll really pull out of this recession if we we're willing to invest and grow our way out of it.  Not everything that raises the deficit is worth it, but there's a big difference between waste, spending and investment.  We hear so much about how good families balance their budgets, and so should the government.  But never mind that smart households routinely leverage debt to make smart investments in their future: college loans, car loans, remodeling loans, mortgages and more are everyday facets of our lives, and can be part and parcel of a "fiscally responsible" household budget.  The federal government most certainly ISNT a household, or a small business, and can push these investments even farther.  

    You might be interested in checking out the Breakthrough Institute if this is your thing.  We haven't been afraid to push for smart investments, even if they come from deficit spending.  And my colleagues Teryn Norris and Adam Zemel recently wrote a featured column at HuffingtonPost calling on Obama to overhaul the federal budget system to allow for capital budget accounting to differentiate between short-term spending (which would follow pay-go in general) and long-term investments (which would not).  You can see it here, "Obama Needs an Economic Philosophy."

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

  • Excellent post

    David, excellent post.  Glad to see you pushing the critical role of public investments in driving the transition to a clean energy economy.  I made an eerily similar point in my column at Huffington Post today, "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-jenkins/will-obama-put-real-money_b_169555.html"Will Obama Put Real Money on the Table for Clean Energy?"  Once we have a real budget in our hands, we'll be able to see whether or not Obama has a plan to launch the type and scale of investments we need, or if he'll stand by the vague campaign promise to invest $15 billion/year in clean energy investments.  I'm definitely not giving up on Obama yet, but it's good to keep him honest, and to keep pushing for the scale of investment we need.

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

  • No evidence dividends increase public appeal

    Despite Lakoff's claims about the cognitive appeal of Cap and Dividend and the popularity of Alaska's oil-revenue-funded dividends frequently cited as anectodal evidence by Peter Barnes and other Cap and Dividend advocates, there is little - dare I say NO - public opinion or real-world evidence that adding dividends or refunds to the mix increases the public appeal of any carbon pricing regime.

    If we look north, not to Alaska but to Canada, we find more relevant, real world examples.  In Canada, revenue neutral carbon tax and rebate programs have been tested at both the provincial and federal level and public opinion research reveals that the rebates do little to increase popular support for the proposals.  Several polls found majorities of voters in BC opposed to not just the provincial carbon tax and rebate program, but to the rebates themselves.  One poll found 71% of respondents and 64% of low income respondents disagreed with the Climate Action Dividends funded by the carbon tax.  In addition, nearly three-quarters of respondents in that survey did not believe statements that the tax was revenue neutral.

    In the October 2008 federal elections, the opposition Liberal Party ran with a carbon tax and rebate proposal dubbed "Green Shift" as their central plank.  While early polls in the Spring showed a majority of Canadians supported the proposal, when the economy tanked, public opinion turned and Canadians delivered a crushing defeat to the Liberal Party, prompting the quick resignation of their leader, former environment minister Stephen Dion.  

    Interestingly enough, even the early polls showing support for the carbon tax showed that Canadians vastly preferred the funds be invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  Nearly half of respondents in one poll (47%) said they preferred potential revenues be spent on "renewable energy like wind and solar power" and 16 percent said they wanted to see revenues spent on "energy efficient technologies."  In contrast, only 11 percent of respondents said they would prefer the carbon tax revenues be used to cut income taxes.

    Canada's experience with carbon tax and rebate mirrors public opinion research conducted in the United States by EMC Research and American Environics and commissioned by the Nathan Cummings Foundation that specifically tested the "Sky Trust" Cap and Dividend proposal advocated by Barnes and Lakoff, as well as two other policy prescriptions for global warming.

    The survey found a bare majority supported the Sky Trust proposal (51%).  However, support dropped to 31% of respondents once likely arguments against the proposal, including arguments that it would increase energy costs over the next several decades while creating a major new government entitlement program.  A greater number of respondents support a straight cap and trade proposal (62% initial support dropping to 46% after arguments against it were made), again indicating that dividends do not increase the appeal of carbon pricing proposals and in fact may weaken public support.

    The survey found the greatest public support for a proposal to invest $300 billion over ten years to develop new, low-cost clean energy technologies and industries, eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create new jobs, and reduce US carbon emissions.  Investing in a new energy economy received support from 85% of respondents and the proposal was the only one to maintain support from a majority of those surveyed after likely arguments against it were made.  After hearing arguments that the proposal would either raise taxes or expand the deficit and will spend hundreds of billions of dollars with no requirement that polluting industries reduce emissions, 54% of respondents still supported the proposal

    As in the national Canadian poll, American voters seem to vastly prefer investments in clean energy technology over Cap and Dividend proposals.

    So rather than finding evidence that Cap and Dividend strengthens the appeal of carbon pricing programs, it appears as if adding dividends or rebates to the mix actually weakens the political chances of a cap and trade bill.  Better to focus on investing in making clean energy abundant and affordable - which would actually reduce the cost impacts of a cap and trade bill - rather than simply recycling revenues to shield consumers.

    More on why Cap and Dividend is NOT the answer here...

    Jesse Jenkins
    The Breakthrough Institute
    http://thebreakthrough.org

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Attempting to un-vex the vexing subject of cap-and-dividend posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • Still the Technology 16 to Contend with in Senate

    While Obama, Waxman and Pelosi may have more-or-less free reign in the House now, they will still have to contend with the group of sixteen moderate Senators who are organization to take control of the climate debate in the Senate.  Representing nearly 1/3rd of the Senate Democratic caucus, the "Technology 16" share views more aligned with Dingell than Waxman and will be a force to be reckoned with on any climate policy coming out of the House.  Not to check the enthusiasm, but while Waxman's appointment may signal a major political shift in the House, it does little to change dynamics in the Senate.

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Waxman's win signals shift in Congress on climate and energy policy posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

  • Investment Yes, Cap and Dividend No

    David,

    Excellent post.  I think you are exactly right that a new era of Keynesian economic spending could be our best - if not only - hope of advancing serious action to curb emissions growth in the next year.  But only if we focus on direct investments that both stimulates the economy and helps drive climate solutions: i.e. the massive deployment of clean energy technologies and a dramatic increase in end-use energy efficiency.

    Unfortunately, Eric Pooley, who's "Save the Economy, Save the Planet" piece you link to, gets the analysis of the political climate right but the strategy wrong.  Pooley prescribes a full-on Cap and Dividend program as the right strategy, which is an approach I fear is full of folly in today's political climate.

    I've explained my concerns with Cap and Dividend here, and welcome any comments and/or defense of this strategy: "Cap and Dividend? Sorry, Wrong Answer"

    Keep up the good writing,

    Jesse Jenkins
    WattHead - Energy News and Commentary
    The Breakthrough Institute

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On The economic crisis should prompt more green infrastructure spending, not less posted 1 year, 1 month ago 11 Responses

  • College Students Doing Natta, eh?

    Pangolin, where the hell do you get off saying this: "The college aged youth of america, taken as a group, are doing exactly bupkiss, nada, zero, nothing."

    Do you live in a cave, duck-taped to a moose with a solitary lightbulb swinging back and forth?  Have you set foot on a college campus recently?  Or if you prefer to not leave your cave (which apparently comes equipped with an internet connection at least), you could simply head on over here, here, or here and then tell me college students are doing "bupkiss, nada, zero."

    Oh, and on bottled water, who do you think is doing the work on this campaign?  Oh that's right, college-aged students and recent graduates are...  

    And just because a few students got a good idea that somebody else has already thought of doesn't mean you need to belittle every single college student's commitment to solving the climate crisis.  You write on your blog "It's time for us to make a stand for our children and our planet."  Good luck making that stand all on your own from your little cave in Northern California...

    And thanks for your completely patronizing and dismissive comments.  

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On It's a hot topic on campus these days posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

  • Capping the transportation sector

    Jon and Sean,

    Actually, almost all proposals due in fact include the transportation sector (at least all federal proposals plus CA's AB 32) by including oil refineries (and sometimes importers) "upstream" in the cap.  That is an oil refinery or oil/refined product importer would need to submit emissions allowances for each ton of carbon in the fuel that they sell, in addition to the emissions that actually come out of refinery smokestacks.  The cost of those emissions is therefore passed "downstream" to consumers in the price of fuel, essentially implementing a carbon content-based fuel tax that should hopefully reduce demand by encouraging conservation and fuel efficiency.

    That's the idea anyway, and is how you wrap the transportation industry (both freight and light vehicles) up in the cap.  

    Check out World Resource Institutes's excellent side-by-side comparison and analysis of the current federal climate proposals here.

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Thoughts and reactions on Obama's bold new energy proposal posted 2 years, 1 month ago 21 Responses

  • Well said David!

    Well said, David.  Your points about N&S having both too much and too little faith in markets really sum it all up.  Both incentives and regulations that rewire market forces are crucial to solving the climate crisis.  The two paths are two sides of the same coin, and neither will work well, or quickly enough, without the other.

    As I wrote in my post on N&S:

    "Putting a price on carbon is necessary to send the correct market signals and to spur private sector innovation. But this innovation can and must be accelerated by public-sector research and investment. We've got to make the transition to a carbon neutral, prosperous America as quickly as possible, and that requires public as well as private investment in our common future. Auctioning emissions allowances or taxing emissions can not only send the right market signals to the private sector, but can also raise the necessary billions in funding for massive public investment to drive down the cost of clean energy technologies, a down-payment on a carbon-neutral, prosperous America.

    It breaks down like this, in my opinion:

    1. We need to put a price on carbon emissions to harness the innovation and power of markets to find solutions to the climate crisis and ensure we reduce global warming pollution to a safe level.

    2. The atmosphere is a common good, owned by all Americans, not just polluters. We should therefore force polluters to pay for the privilege to emit global warming pollution, raising billions of dollars in the process.

    3. Putting a price on carbon is necessary as is forcing polluters to pay for their mess, but doing so will raise energy prices. The good news is, it will also raise a lot of money that can be pumped into making sure average Americans end up better off than before. We can do this in two ways:

    a) we can pump much of that money into accelerating the transformation of our energy economy to a sustainable, low-carbon system. We can provide incentives to lower the costs of clean energy technologies, provide R&D and fund public-private partnerships to accelerate the deployment of the next generation of clean energy technologies and support the innovation fueled by the carbon regulation itself, all the while building a new energy economy and millions of "green collar" jobs.

    b) we can use some of the money to reform our tax structure so that it is more progressive and leaves more money in the pockets of average Americans. These reforms will more than offset the increases (if any) in your energy bill (remember that increased efficiency can offset the effects of increased energy prices too) so in the end, the average American will be better off under a cap-and-auction system than her or she was before.

    That's the recipe for a carbon-neutral, prosperous America in my mind, and it doesn't seem like I'd get much argument from environmentalists or from Nordhaus and Shellenberger on that point.

    This is the platform that we should all be rallying behind, rather than fighting over which is better, regulation or investment. The answer is that neither will solve the climate crisis without the other - and we all seem to be in agreement there too!"
     

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On A reply to Shellenberger & Nordhaus posted 2 years, 1 month ago 20 Responses

  • Who are you arguing with?

    A question for Nordhaus and Schellenberger:  who are you arguing with?!

    You and your Breakthrough Institute cohorts keep taking this combative/adversarial tone towards the folks who should be your allies - environmentalists and clean energy/global warming activists (who may or may not consider themselves the same people) - and you come off as anti-regulation.  

    But when you look at your more nuanced position, I don't think you really are saying that you're anti-cap and trade or anti-carbon tax or anti-regulation.  

    You write: "Our proposal, to state it once again, is that Congress pass legislation that either auctions permits or taxes carbon enough to a) establish a price for carbon sufficient to result in inexpensive emissions reductions, b) generate at least $30 billion a year for clean energy investments, and c) creating market conditions for the widespread adoption of these new technologies."

    So when you boil it down, you just consider regulation an incomplete piece of the full puzzle, and the funny thing is, I don't think you'll get any argument from those who you are supposedly trying to argue with (the "establishment" environmentalists, clean energy advocates, and global warming activists); you'll certainly get no argument from me!  

    You write talk about "the environmental community's regulation-only agenda," but where does such an agenda really exist?  Which environmental groups are really putting all their eggs in the regulation basket?  Which enviro groups would oppose massive investments in a clean energy future?

    The reality is, they'd be hard to find.  

    Why do you think there's been so much focus on auctioning the emissions allowances under a cap and trade proposal?  Why do you think we've been most enviro groups have been opposed to the mediocre-to-just-plain-crappy proposals of Lieberman-Warner and Bingaman?  Why do you think enviro groups have been championing the best aspects of the House and Senate energy packages as a first start towards shifting our public investment from dirty to clean energy sources?  

    Enviros and GW activists aren't fighting you on this!  Industry is. "Government-is-the-problem" conservatives are.

    Yet you present your arguments in such a controversial way that you make it out as if you were in some kind of controversial fight with enviros.  You're not!  

    That may be a great way to get attention for your articles and books, but it's not a great way to build alliances with the kind of folks who you should be building alliances with, the kind of folks who are in actuality already on your side!

    So perhaps we as a movement need to strategically emphasize the public investment part (and it's benefits) over the regulation part (we do!). This is a very valid strategic critique and one that I thank you for elevating to the fore of discussions.

    But we all seem to be in agreement that neither regulation or investment will work on its own, and the two - cap-and-auction and public investment - are mutually supportive and necessary components of a true solution to the climate crisis. Playing one off against the other seems like a really counter-productive way to advance climate solutions, as does hyping up supposed rifts within the movement that don't really exist in the way you describe them.

    I doubt you'd find too many environmentalists who'd argue with the following (nor would you seem to argue with any of this):

    Putting a price on carbon is necessary to send the correct market signals and to spur private sector innovation.  But this innovation can be accelerated by public-sector research and investment, as it should be.  We've got to make the transition to a carbon neutral, prosperous America as quickly as possible, and that requires public investment in our common future.  

    It breaks down like this, in my opinion:

    1) We need to put a price on carbon emissions to harness the innovation and power of markets to find solutions to the climate crisis and ensure we reduce global warming pollution to a safe level.

    2) The atmosphere is a common good, owned by all Americans, not just polluters. We should therefore force polluters to pay for the privilege to emit global warming pollution, raising money in the process.

    3) Putting a price on carbon is necessary as is forcing polluters to pay for their mess, but doing so will raise energy prices. The good news is, it will also raise a lot of money that can be pumped into making sure average Americans end up better off than before. We can do this in two ways:

         a) we can pump much of that money into accelerating the transformation of our energy economy to a sustainable, low-carbon system. We can provide incentives to lower the costs of clean energy technologies, provide R&D and fund public-private partnerships to accelerate the deployment of the next generation of clean energy technologies and support the innovation fueled by the carbon regulation itself.

         b) we can use some of the money to reform our tax structure so that it is more progressive and leaves more money in the pockets of average Americans. These reforms will more than offset the increases (if any) in your energy bill (remember that increased efficiency can offset the effects of increased energy prices too) so in the end, the average American will be better off under a cap and auction system than you were before.

    That's the recipe for a carbon-neutral, prosperous America in my mind, and it doesn't seem like I'd get much argument from enviros or from you two.  

    So in closing, where's all the controversy?

    Jesse Jenkins _____________________ WattHead - Energy News and Commentary http://watthead.blogspot.com

    On Shellenberger & Nordhaus respond to critics posted 2 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

  • Massive corporate giveaway

    Cuncator is right.  It only auctions 24% of the permits initially, with 76% given away for free to states, affected communities and - mostly - to industry.  By my count it gives away 58% of all emissions allowances to industry polluters for free, making this proposal perhaps the largest corporate giveaway of a public good - the right to pollute our commonly-owned air and damage our climate - I can think of.

    Boo!On Go big or play it safe posted 2 years, 3 months ago 10 Responses

  • Wrong Answer!

    Question: Do you support a freeze in the U.S. on new coal development until these clean-coal technologies are commercially available?

    Obama: I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.

    Mnnnn!  Wrong Answer!  Try again...

    First rule of holes: when you're in one, STOP DIGGING.  Then figure out a way to get out.  When it comes to the climate crisis, we're in a pretty damn deep hole, and a president who's not willing to stop the raft of new, conventional, pulverized (aka DIRTY) coal plants currently proposed across the country (more than 100 of them) doesn't impress me with his commitment to tackle the problem.  

    John Edwards has said 'No way!' to new coal plants that don't sequester emissions.  Hillary is at least wiling to say we shouldn't be subsidizing anything that makes the problem worse (a step short of banning new coal plants I suppose).  But Obama wants to let the market work things out?!  You'd better be ready to put a pretty damn stiff price on carbon then and avoid grandfathering in any plants currently on the drawing board, Mr. Obama, so that the market functions properly and keeps those new coal plants from being built.

    Check this out to see how important it is that we stop the construction of ANY new coal-fired power plants that do not sequester 90% or more of their emissions.On An interview with Barack Obama about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • Leadership or follower-ship?

    Senator Obama proudly states that he's the sponsor of "the most aggressive global warming bill in the Senate" - the Sanders-Boxer bill which calls for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

    My question for Senator Obama (and one I wished Grist would have asked) is if he's so proud to support this strong legislation, then why did Senator Obama wait until May, five months after the bill was introduced to sign on as a co-sponsor?  

    Chris Dodd didn't wait - he signed on as an original co-sponsor of the bill.

    John Edwards was the first major candidate to publicly endorse an 80% by 2050 cut in emissions and made it a central part of his comprehensive energy plan released in March.  Not only did he publicly endorse the emissions target, he also immediately called on his supporters through multiple email alerts to urge their representatives and senators to co-sponsor Sanders and Boxers' bill.

    In April, hundreds of thousands of citizens joined the Step it UP! day of action and called for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  Dozens of representatives co-sponsored the house version of the Sanders-Boxer bill (sponsored by Henry Waxman) after Step it UP!.

    So where was Senator Obama this whole time?  Why did he - and Senator Clinton, who endorsed the bill on the same day as Obama - wait until May?  Why didn't he send email alerts to his supporters asking them to call on their representatives and senators to co-sponsor the bill?  What has Obama done to lead his colleagues, his supporters and American citizens on this crucial issue that's supposedly so important to him?

    We desperately need a strong leader in the Oval Office in 2009 committed to solving the climate crisis.  Think about the timeline above and ask yourself if Senator Obama has exhibited leadership, or follower-ship on this issue...On An interview with Barack Obama about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • Not showing leadership

    Senator Clinton says the 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is "a central part of her campaign" and says she's "proud" to join with Boxer and Sanders in co-sponsoring their Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (currently the best global warming bill in the Senate).  

    If this is such a central issue for her, and she's so proud of supporting this bill, then why did she wait until May, five months after the bill was introduced to sign on as a co-sponsor?  

    Chris Dodd didn't wait - he signed on as an original co-sponsor of the bill.

    John Edwards was the first major candidate to publicly endorse an 80% by 2050 cut in emissions and made it a central part of his comprehensive energy plan released in March.  Not only did he publicly endorse the emissions target, he also immediately called on his supporters through multiple email alerts to urge their representatives and senators to co-sponsor Sanders and Boxers' bill.

    In April, hundreds of thousands of citizens joined the Step it UP! day of action and called for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  Dozens of representatives co-sponsored the house version of the Sanders-Boxer bill (sponsored by Henry Waxman) after Step it UP!.

    So where was Senator Clinton this whole time?  Why did she - and Barack Obama, who endorsed the bill on the same day as Clinton - wait until May?  Why did she not send email alerts to her members asking them to call on their representatives and senators to co-sponsor the bill she was "so proud of"?  What has she done to lead her colleagues, her supporters and American citizens on this crucial issue that is 'so central' to her campaign?

    We desperately need a strong leader in the Oval Office in 2009 committed to solving the climate crisis.  Think about the timeline above and ask yourself if Senator Clinton has exhibited leadership, or follower-ship on this issue...On An interview with Hillary Clinton about her presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • Time for #1: Articulate strong core values

    I think the best option for now is for Congressional Dems to go with #1.  Propose a bold plan, one that is based on science, that gets us climate security and that begings a transition to a sustainable, new energy economy.

    This is the chance to articulate not only a strong policy, but much more importantly, begin to articulate a set of strong core values that tackling climate change and building a sustainable energy economy will support and extend from.  Dems should be taking this chance to share a vision of a stronger, safer, richer and healthier America secure from the threats of climate change, depleting fossil fuels and petro-dictators.  

    A package of progressive, bold climate change and clean energy legislation should be presented not just as a way to save 'the environment', but as a way to harness American innovation to create thriving new clean energy industries and good paying jobs, strengthen America's energy independence and break our addiction to foreign oil, secure Americans from the threats of climate catastrophes like hurricanes, devastating heat waves and other 'close to home' impacts of climate change and create a healthier environment for ourselves and our children to live in.

    The flip side of this is that anyone opposed to such a bold vision and the policy proposals that will get us there is therefore positioned on the side of oil dictators, against good jobs for Americans, against healthier air and water, against a safer, stronger, richer America.

    That's the way to build a strong base of support behind a progressive majority and a set of policy proposals with the backing of strong, widely-held values.

    Depending on the results of the '08 elections (which will no doubt be buoyed by a successful effort to present a bold vision and values), turning to a bipartisan compromise may be necessary to get a bill passed.  But at that point, we'll be bargaining from a strong position, not a weak one.  We'll have compromises we can afford to make, since we'll be starting with the strongest proposal. It's always easier to negotiate from a position of strength than to start from a position of compromise.

    The risk of this approach is that we risk making climate change more of a partisan issue, which could hamper future attempts at bipartisan compromise.  But I would argue that articulating such a bold position puts the ball solidly in Republican's courts as to whether or not it should be a partisan issue: if Rs don't stand opposed to this vision, they can easily take away any partisan thunder by simply agreeing that this is the best course for America.  There's no reason why Rs should be opposed to a stronger, safer, richer, healthier America, and if they are, then we shouldn't feel bad about making them explain and defend their position, even if it heightens partisanship.

    It's time for Dems to not just show backbone, but to show leadership and vision. Time for them to present a vision of an America worth striving for.  

    -Jesse Jenkins
    http://watthead.blogspot.comOn Go big or play it safe posted 2 years, 3 months ago 10 Responses