<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Waxman-Markey: ‘80% less by 2050’ is too hard, let’s do 46%]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by enviroperk http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/ Thu, 21 May 2009 21:56:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/1 I equate the current CO2 problem to the water-pollution problem we faced in the 60's and 70's. We were buying goods that created the pollution but we were not paying the full price in the price of the product. The billions spent on Superfund and other remediation, including leveling fines on those responsible, soon made the real cost clear, and the problem began to be resolved for economic reasons.

I believe a tax on CO2 emissions would most quickly solve the problem. If coal was taxed based on its contribution to CO2 and food-chain mercury contamination, we would immediately see the real cost in our monthly electric bills and use less, or at least demand quick action.  That would go a long way to solving the problem.

As long as we willingly buy coal produced electricity at a falsely low price, the problem will continue. No other technology is economically viable. The same with gasoline. If gas was $7.00 per gallon (arguably a price closer to the environmental cost will will eventually pay in the future) , would you find a way to use less? You bet. Do you drive more when gas is $2.00 per gallon rather than $4.00 per gallon? Most people do.

]]> I equate the current CO2 problem to the water-pollution problem we faced in the 60's and 70's. We were buying goods that created the pollution but we were not paying the full price in the price of the product. The billions spent on Superfund and other remediation, including leveling fines on those responsible, soon made the real cost clear, and the problem began to be resolved for economic reasons.

I believe a tax on CO2 emissions would most quickly solve the problem. If coal was taxed based on its contribution to CO2 and food-chain mercury contamination, we would immediately see the real cost in our monthly electric bills and use less, or at least demand quick action.  That would go a long way to solving the problem.

As long as we willingly buy coal produced electricity at a falsely low price, the problem will continue. No other technology is economically viable. The same with gasoline. If gas was $7.00 per gallon (arguably a price closer to the environmental cost will will eventually pay in the future) , would you find a way to use less? You bet. Do you drive more when gas is $2.00 per gallon rather than $4.00 per gallon? Most people do.

]]> Comment #2 by derbymt http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/ Fri, 22 May 2009 11:19:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/2 While I certainly understand your dissapointment with the bill's weakness, I nonetheless find it difficult to accept your reasoning when the hero you exalt as an alternative is a man who hacked unarmed people to death with broadswords.


Perhaps zeal is needed, but extremist statements tend to create apathy, not inspiration, among the more moderately-minded.


]]> While I certainly understand your dissapointment with the bill's weakness, I nonetheless find it difficult to accept your reasoning when the hero you exalt as an alternative is a man who hacked unarmed people to death with broadswords.


Perhaps zeal is needed, but extremist statements tend to create apathy, not inspiration, among the more moderately-minded.


]]> Comment #3 by scottsles http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/ Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:39:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-80-less-by-2050-is-too-hard-lets-do-46/3 I think you made one false assumption in this article.  You write: "Worse, non-CO2 emissions, which accounted for 1,056 Tg in 2005, are probably fertile territory for quick and cost-effective fixes."

Unfortunately, that fertile ground has been buried. Under section 332, CFCs, one of the highest non-CO2 emissions, 11,000 times CO2, is put in a separate auction that limits the bidders to the handful of companies that import or produce HFCs.  This will keep the price artifically low, (six bidders versus 1000s) so low that their will be no incentives to destroy those refrigerants.  Unfortunately, most will leak out into the atmosphere before 2020 undercutting a good percentage of what Waxman-Markey wants to do.

 

]]> I think you made one false assumption in this article.  You write: "Worse, non-CO2 emissions, which accounted for 1,056 Tg in 2005, are probably fertile territory for quick and cost-effective fixes."

Unfortunately, that fertile ground has been buried. Under section 332, CFCs, one of the highest non-CO2 emissions, 11,000 times CO2, is put in a separate auction that limits the bidders to the handful of companies that import or produce HFCs.  This will keep the price artifically low, (six bidders versus 1000s) so low that their will be no incentives to destroy those refrigerants.  Unfortunately, most will leak out into the atmosphere before 2020 undercutting a good percentage of what Waxman-Markey wants to do.

 

]]>