Comments drosenblum has made

But a Carbon Tax is Far Superior

You left out a discussion of the problems with cap-and-trade.  Here's a quick summary from our Carbon Tax Center web site:

   1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
   2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
   3. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
   4. Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system's complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
   5. Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.
   6. Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through dividends or progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

For details, see our issue paper carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade.

Dan Rosenblum
Co-Director
Carbon Tax Center
On Umbra on carbon trading posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Not the Carbon Tax Center This Time

Just to avoid any confusion, "Killing Me Loudly" reflects Charlie's views rather than those of the Carbon Tax Center.  As the co-director of the Carbon Tax Center, I note the following points:

1.  The "green establishment" that Charlie criticizes has been attacking Congressman Dingell, not the carbon tax.  It has legitimate reasons to be upset at Dingell about CAFE. In addition, I wouldn't have referred to a monolithic green establishment.
   
2.  I would not have used the "clear-cutter on crank" language, which suggests an irrational drug-crazed response.  In my view, the responses to Dingell on CAFE issues are entirely rational.
   
3.  I do agree with Charlie that Dingell has not presented the carbon tax in the most productive fashion.  Dingell has, however, done a tremendous service by adding his clout to the carbon tax legislation already proposed by Congressmen Stark, McDermott and Larson.
   
4.  I wouldn't have compared a one-time CAFE change to the questionable assumption that the Dingell ramp-up would continue indefinitely.
   
5.  I wouldn't have used the "crackpot realists" language.  We do differ with the political analysis of many cap-and-trade proponents, in part because we're convinced that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is politically feasible when compared to the effective tax that results from a cap-and-trade scheme.  
   
6. I would not have used Charlie's "dirty secret" language nor his statement that 'Big Green has an equally limitless appetite for "allies" among the corporate elite.' I accept the fact that many people for whom I have great respect currently support cap-and-trade for rational reasons, although I'm distressed that some environmentalists support a form of cap-and-trade that would give away allowances.
   
7.  I disagree with the statement that "Perhaps the environmental establishment will get its way and Congress will pass a CAFE bill while continuing to ignore the growing calls for taxing carbon."  The environmental establishment generally wants to put a price on carbon and I'm hopeful that more and more organizations will recognize that carbon taxes are the optimal approach.  The groups Charlie attacks have not attacked carbon taxes.
   
8.  Re Charlie's final point, asking "what good are mileage standards, [etc.}?  My answer would be  a lot, but not enough.  We also need a carbon tax.

Carbon Tax Is a Good Test

"It's important to keep an eye on what he's actually doing where it matters -- and whether he's gaining any traction. So far, he's fought hard against all steps forward, but it hasn't made much difference in policy."  

Dingell's anticipated carbon tax proposal will be an excellent test of whether there is substance behind the rhetoric.  If he uses his remaining power to help pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax, he will conclusively demonstrate his commitment to serious action on global warming.  If it's lip service designed to sabotage other efforts, you're right that we should stop obsessing about what Dingell thinks or does.On Even though conventional wisdom says you need him to pass major environmental legislation posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Heating Water

Did the comparison of an electric kettle to a gas range take into consideration the energy loss before the electric kettle heats the water?  Since approximately two-thirds of the energy used to make electricity is lost to waste heat and other losses, the losses could be comparable to the gas heat losses you describe with a gas range.On Umbra on boiling water for tea posted 2 years, 9 months ago 23 Responses