by Ken Johnson

Posted 4 days, 23 hours ago According to Sen. John Kerry, no.

There has been a lively discussion of this topic on James Handley's blog at carbontax.org. My last comment, responding to Dan's 11/19/2009 comment, was blocked, but is replicated below:

Dan,

Thank you for the calculations. This is excellent.

One point of clarification, re "As I understand, Ken would have the entire cost of wind power subsidized from the carbon fee revenue." If $100/MWh wind power is competing against $50/MWh fossil fuels, then wind would only need a $50/MWh subsidy (not $100/MWh) to be cost competitive. So the $10/MWh carbon fee could actually… Read More

Posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago Paul Krugman concludes in "It's easy being green," that "the claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax." Indeed, but the notion that the Waxman-Markey legislation is about "saving the planet" (Krugman's words) is equally inscrutable. Read More

Posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago For all of Waxman-Markey's faults, I think it gets two things right: (1) allowance set-asides to fund tropical forest conservation, and (2) a meaningful price floor...However, they leave W-M with no coherent policy foundation, because its other regulatory mechanisms -- the cap, trading, economy-wide linkage, banking, borrowing, and offsets -- all operate to achieve the converse objective of minimizing costs within limits of a predetermined (and unsustainable) emission cap. Read More

Posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago [8/19/2009]

I am a California resident and climate policy activist with a particular interest in California’s legislative policy related to climate change. My advocacy activities have focused recently on California’s AB 32 legislation and the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

Recent writings:

"Preserving Additionality of Complementary GHG-Reduction Actions Under Waxman-Markey" (June 16, 2009)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1421947

"A Decarbonization Strategy for the Electricity Sector: New-Source Subsidies" (July 22, 2009)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427106

"The Role of Policy Logic in U.S. Climate Legislation" (July 23, 2009)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437741

I have provided comments, testimony, and technical analysis for the following groups and activities (search for "Johnson"):

Western Environmental… Read More

Posted 6 months, 1 week ago Four questions about the Obama administration's planned fuel standards for automobiles. Read More

Posted 8 months, 1 week ago For an $80 billion program, President Barack Obama's cap-and-trade proposal is very short on specifics. His budget plan [PDF] provides only the briefest policy rationale for cap-and-trade, describing it as "a policy approach that dramatically reduced acid rain at much lower costs than the traditional government regulations and mandates of the past." Read More

Posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago Are emission targets ever really 'science-based'? Or are we playing a dangerous game of self-deception?

Last month, Senator Barbara Boxer proposed six principles for climate legislation, the first of which was:

1. Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming.

The National Call to Action on Global Warming, announced last week by a coalition of fifty environmental and public-interest groups, is more specific. Its first stated objective is the following:

Establish Science-Based Pollution Reduction Targets. Cut total, economy-wide global warming emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020… Read More

Posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago This post makes a point that I already made last Monday, but it bears repeating -- this time in the context of cap-and-trade.

Chaz Teplin gave some approximate numbers for how much Obama's cap-and-trade plan would raise energy prices (based on a $14.30/MT carbon price):

Effect of the Obama carbon price

• Petroleum fuel: adds 15¢/gallon
• Electricity: adds 0.8¢/kWh (compare to 7-10¢/kWh residential rates)
• Natural gas: adds 8¢/therm (compare to 85¢/therm residential rates)

 

The conclusion: "... energy prices would increase by about 10 percent. It's a start, but a very slow one." But that's… Read More

Posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago James Hansen has again been lecturing Congress on the virtues of tax-and-dividend. I'm no policy expert, but neither is Dr. Hansen, so I'm going to share some of my own amateur observations for the benefit of fellow Grist wonks.

Hansen did some calculations and came up with the following dividend estimates for a $115/ton (equivalent to $1/gallon) tax:

Single share: $3000/year ($250 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Family with 2 children: $9000/year ($750 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Wow! Free money! That sounds enticing. Of course, the money has to come from… Read More

Posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago Following are two questions for James Hansen and Grist readers, relating to Dr. Hansen's tax-and-dividend proposal in his recent policy recommendations to Obama:

1. Would it not be advantageous to use dividends to give consumers an equity stake and interest in decarbonization?

This could be achieved by investing carbon tax revenue in renewable energy and clean technologies in exchange for equity, and distributing equity shares to the public on an equitable per-capita basis. The shares would yield dividends that increase -- not decrease -- as carbon is phased out.

2. Is tax-and-dividend fundamentally incompatible with cap-and-trade?

Many of the… Read More