<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How Obama can revive the economy and heal the planet]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/1 Cap and auction natural gas only...

But it wouldn't work quickly enough to phase out coal in 10 years. For that we need a government mandate.

As Joe Romm says:In short, if you believe Hansen is right, then don't waste time with a carbon price. We need to go straight to the government-led WWII-style effort for the whole planet that is sustained for decades, as I discuss in the Conclusion to my book (online here, reg. req'd). This is obviously no more politically plausible today than a price for carbon of several hundred dollars. But unlike the carbon price approach, at least the WWII-style approach would work.

One way to phase out coal would be to simply nationalize the coal industry. Then reduce the amount mined each year, while finding new work for displaced coal miners. Utilities would be forced to switch to renewables, and if they were unable to, then they would have to be municipalized. Either way, the federal government would have to bring to market renewable wind, solar and geothermal energy to aid the transition. (Perhaps with TVA and BPA-type projects.)

]]> Cap and auction natural gas only...

But it wouldn't work quickly enough to phase out coal in 10 years. For that we need a government mandate.

As Joe Romm says:In short, if you believe Hansen is right, then don't waste time with a carbon price. We need to go straight to the government-led WWII-style effort for the whole planet that is sustained for decades, as I discuss in the Conclusion to my book (online here, reg. req'd). This is obviously no more politically plausible today than a price for carbon of several hundred dollars. But unlike the carbon price approach, at least the WWII-style approach would work.

One way to phase out coal would be to simply nationalize the coal industry. Then reduce the amount mined each year, while finding new work for displaced coal miners. Utilities would be forced to switch to renewables, and if they were unable to, then they would have to be municipalized. Either way, the federal government would have to bring to market renewable wind, solar and geothermal energy to aid the transition. (Perhaps with TVA and BPA-type projects.)

]]> Comment #2 by urbanangler http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:32:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/2 Downstream, not upstream

If the US signs a major international treaty, I'm willing to bet it'll follow Kyoto's lead and measure success in percent-reduction of global warming pollution. In that case, the US will have to monitor smokestacks anyway (one of the author's primary reasons for choosing to tackle upstream sources).

Additionally, if coal and oil production becomes more expensive in the US, companies that use those products will simply purchase more imports. This point partially argues against nationalizing the coal industry. If we were to try to penalize foreign upstream sources, I doubt the WTO would be very happy...

We're going to have to monitor smokestacks anyway, and regulating those smokestacks is something that wouldn't cause foreign-relations havoc. Am I missing something?

]]> Downstream, not upstream

If the US signs a major international treaty, I'm willing to bet it'll follow Kyoto's lead and measure success in percent-reduction of global warming pollution. In that case, the US will have to monitor smokestacks anyway (one of the author's primary reasons for choosing to tackle upstream sources).

Additionally, if coal and oil production becomes more expensive in the US, companies that use those products will simply purchase more imports. This point partially argues against nationalizing the coal industry. If we were to try to penalize foreign upstream sources, I doubt the WTO would be very happy...

We're going to have to monitor smokestacks anyway, and regulating those smokestacks is something that wouldn't cause foreign-relations havoc. Am I missing something?

]]> Comment #3 by Backcut http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:09:17 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/3 Why bother?

As long as "green" people prefer black forests over "healthy" forests, as long as "green" people embrace wild fire, as long as "green" people ignore the massive plumes of GHG's and toxic smoke and pump AT LEAST 10 tons of it PER ACRE (up to 100+ tons per acre) directly into our atmosphere, I won't support expensive and incrementally-effective programs to sequester CO2 and other GHG's.

Why bother when, even in a mild fire year (except for those 3 month long California fires) we still have the highest costs of "non-suppression" of wildfires EVER! The "Die, Rot and Let-Burn Program" is killing our forests. If fire is such "a good thing" (as you wanna-be green Martha Stewarts think), then our forests should be just perfect by now, eh? How many tens of millions of acres burned during the Bush Administration?

Black is the new Green so, you better get used to it. I predict that during Obama's four years in office, wildfires will put an estimated 320,000,000 TONS of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Hug those snags, folks.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

]]> Why bother?

As long as "green" people prefer black forests over "healthy" forests, as long as "green" people embrace wild fire, as long as "green" people ignore the massive plumes of GHG's and toxic smoke and pump AT LEAST 10 tons of it PER ACRE (up to 100+ tons per acre) directly into our atmosphere, I won't support expensive and incrementally-effective programs to sequester CO2 and other GHG's.

Why bother when, even in a mild fire year (except for those 3 month long California fires) we still have the highest costs of "non-suppression" of wildfires EVER! The "Die, Rot and Let-Burn Program" is killing our forests. If fire is such "a good thing" (as you wanna-be green Martha Stewarts think), then our forests should be just perfect by now, eh? How many tens of millions of acres burned during the Bush Administration?

Black is the new Green so, you better get used to it. I predict that during Obama's four years in office, wildfires will put an estimated 320,000,000 TONS of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Hug those snags, folks.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

]]> Comment #4 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:19:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/4 Upstream is a lousy idea

As I noted here, putting carbon prices on upstream sources severs the link between the economic signal and the decision about whether or not to combust the fuel... and fossil fuel doesn't release any CO2 until it is burned.  The result is that such a system becomes highly dependent on the theory that upstream costs will translate perfectly into downstream prices, which is not only at odds with observed experience, but also an awfully high-stakes bet.  The result is that the actors in the economy who have the widest array of options to profitably reduce CO2 emissions (from fuel switching to efficiency to conservation) are severed from the price, while the actors who have the fewest options to make profitable changes (an LNG terminal cannot readily become a biodiesel plant, after all) bear all the cost.  The net impact is that an upstream pricing model ensures that we will pay more than we have to for GHG reduction, and create the self-fulfilling prophesy that GHG reduction is economically painful, before we ever get to the "dividend" part of your idea.

]]> Upstream is a lousy idea

As I noted here, putting carbon prices on upstream sources severs the link between the economic signal and the decision about whether or not to combust the fuel... and fossil fuel doesn't release any CO2 until it is burned.  The result is that such a system becomes highly dependent on the theory that upstream costs will translate perfectly into downstream prices, which is not only at odds with observed experience, but also an awfully high-stakes bet.  The result is that the actors in the economy who have the widest array of options to profitably reduce CO2 emissions (from fuel switching to efficiency to conservation) are severed from the price, while the actors who have the fewest options to make profitable changes (an LNG terminal cannot readily become a biodiesel plant, after all) bear all the cost.  The net impact is that an upstream pricing model ensures that we will pay more than we have to for GHG reduction, and create the self-fulfilling prophesy that GHG reduction is economically painful, before we ever get to the "dividend" part of your idea.

]]> Comment #5 by josullivan58 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:21:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/5 Backcut

are any of your comments not freak-outs about forest fires? Have you thought about going on meds?

]]> Backcut

are any of your comments not freak-outs about forest fires? Have you thought about going on meds?

]]> Comment #6 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:12:11 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/green-unity/6 Are we not men?

...as post-punkers Devo put it.

Urbanangler, thinking about this coal nationalization thing... If we did do the right thing (as the science suggests) and agreed to phase out coal in 10 years, that would be the death knell for the coal industry. Why would investors keep their money in an industry with a death sentence. So I think the mine owners would be only too willing to sell to the government while their stock prices were still high.

If we did make that announcement, the price of coal would probably collapse worldwide (like the oil prices of today). In any case, the US could simply ban coal imports, as there are exceptions in the WTO regulations for environmental pollutants. (And besides we have to believe that world-wide GW agreements will be forged.) As Chomsky might say, what we say goes.

]]> Are we not men?

...as post-punkers Devo put it.

Urbanangler, thinking about this coal nationalization thing... If we did do the right thing (as the science suggests) and agreed to phase out coal in 10 years, that would be the death knell for the coal industry. Why would investors keep their money in an industry with a death sentence. So I think the mine owners would be only too willing to sell to the government while their stock prices were still high.

If we did make that announcement, the price of coal would probably collapse worldwide (like the oil prices of today). In any case, the US could simply ban coal imports, as there are exceptions in the WTO regulations for environmental pollutants. (And besides we have to believe that world-wide GW agreements will be forged.) As Chomsky might say, what we say goes.

]]>