- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,314
- Reaction score
- 4,112
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why not just explain the point you want to make?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Should a govt scientist be advocation a carbon tax?
- Thread starter KLATTU
- Start date
Why not just explain the point you want to make?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,523
- Reaction score
- 22,172
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I explained mine in the next post.
I didn't read enough about the obsolete 1975 regulation, so I don't have a view on it.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,356
- Reaction score
- 49,391
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I'm not against green technologies. Just as long as they can compete on equal footing with the technologies they are seeking to displace.
Why do you believe that's unreasonable? Why do you believe that the green technologies are incapable of achieving this?
Perhaps they aren't cost competitive now, but I think they will be in the future, and without the government putting their thumbs on the scales of the marketplace.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The incoming Trump administration has promised dramatic transformations on many vital domestic issues. The best gauge of this development is the fierce level of opposition his policies have generated from Democratic stalwarts. One representative screed is a New York Times Op-Ed by Professors Michael Greenstone and Cass Sunstein, who lecture the incoming president on climate change: “Donald Trump Should Know: This is What Climate Change Costs Us.”
Greenstone and Sunstein have a large stake in the game: During their years in the first Obama administration, they convened an interagency working group (IWG) drawn from various federal agencies that determined that the social cost of carbon (SCC)—or the marginal cost of the release of a ton of carbon into the atmosphere—should be estimated at about $36 per ton (as of 2015). Choose that number and there is much justification for taking major policy steps to curb the emission of carbon dioxide. Greenstone and Sunstein hoped that the working group process would draw on the “latest research in science and economics,” and establish the claimed costs by “accounting for the destruction of property from storms and floods, declining agricultural and labor productivity, elevated mortality rates and more.”
Their effort should be dismissed as a rousing failure, and as an affront to the scientific method that they purport to adopt in their studies. The first error is one of approach. The worst way to get a full exchange of views on the complex matter of global warming is to pack the IWG entirely with members from the Obama administration, all surely preselected in part because they share the president’s exaggerated concerns with the problem of global warming. The only way to get a full and accurate picture of the situation is to listen to dissenters on global warming as well as advocates, which was never done. After all, who should listen to a “denier”?
This dismissive attitude is fatal to independent inquiry. No matter how many times the president claims the science is rock-solid, the wealth of recent evidence gives rise to a very different picture that undercuts the inordinate pessimism about climate change that was in vogue about 10 years ago. The group convened in the Obama administration never examined, let alone refuted, the accumulation of evidence on the other side. Indeed, virtually all of its reports are remarkable for the refusal to address any of the data at all. Instead, the common theme is to refer to models developed by others as the solid foundation for the group’s own work, without questioning a word of what those models say.
The second major mistake in the government studies is the way in which they frame the social costs of carbon. As all champions of cost/benefit analysis understand, it is a mistake to look at costs in isolation from benefits, or benefits apart from costs. Yet that appears to be the approach taken in these reports. In dealing with various objections to its reports, the IWG noted in its July 2015 response that “some commenters felt that the SCC estimates should include the value to society of the goods and services whose production is associated with CO2 emissions.” Their evasive response has to be quoted in full to be believed: “Rigorous evaluation of benefits and costs is a core tenet of the rulemaking process. The IWG agrees that these are important issues that may be relevant to assessing the impacts of policies that reduce CO2 emissions. However, these issues are not relevant to the SCC itself. The SCC is an estimate of the net economic damages resulting from CO2emissions, and therefore is used to estimate the benefit of reducing those emissions.”
Read the entire essay here, it is well worth your time. h/t to Dr. Judith Curry.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,314
- Reaction score
- 4,112
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
As I noted, they already are competitive, especially if they actually were competing on equal footing. Take one of the cheapest fossil electricity sources, coal. Even disregarding environmental and climate impacts entirely - though why we should do so is difficult to fathom - its cost on society is still vast, but not reflected in the meter price because they are simply externalized onto everyone else:
Coal Pollution Damages Human Health at Every Stage of Coal Life Cycle, Reports Physicians for Social Responsibility | PSR
November 18, 2009 – Physicians for Social Responsibility today released a groundbreaking medical report, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. By examining the impact of coal pollution on the major organ systems of the human body, the report concludes that coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in the U.S. and is responsible for increasing the incidence of major diseases already affecting large portions of the U.S. population.
November 18, 2009 – Physicians for Social Responsibility today released a groundbreaking medical report, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. By examining the impact of coal pollution on the major organ systems of the human body, the report concludes that coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in the U.S. and is responsible for increasing the incidence of major diseases already affecting large portions of the U.S. population.
Power Crazed | George Monbiot
Most of the afflictions wrongly attributed to nuclear power can rightly be attributed to coal. I was struck by this thought when I saw the graphics published by Greenpeace on Friday, showing the premature deaths caused by coal plants in China(1). The research it commissioned suggests that a quarter of a million deaths a year could be avoided there if coal power there were shut down(2). Yes, a quarter of a million. . . .
In total, air pollution in northern China, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has cut average life expectancy by five and a half years(19). We have exported much of our pollution – and its associated deaths – but the residue in our own countries is still severe. A study by the Clean Air Task Force suggests that coal power in the US causes 13,200 premature deaths a year(20). In Europe, according to the Health and Environment Alliance, the figure is 18,200(21).
Most of the afflictions wrongly attributed to nuclear power can rightly be attributed to coal. I was struck by this thought when I saw the graphics published by Greenpeace on Friday, showing the premature deaths caused by coal plants in China(1). The research it commissioned suggests that a quarter of a million deaths a year could be avoided there if coal power there were shut down(2). Yes, a quarter of a million. . . .
In total, air pollution in northern China, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has cut average life expectancy by five and a half years(19). We have exported much of our pollution – and its associated deaths – but the residue in our own countries is still severe. A study by the Clean Air Task Force suggests that coal power in the US causes 13,200 premature deaths a year(20). In Europe, according to the Health and Environment Alliance, the figure is 18,200(21).
The vast social subsidies provided for many traditional energy sources - in human health, in environmental impacts, in climate impacts, in wars and foreign engagement to maintain supplies - might have been necessary, once. Maybe. But pretending that newer, cleaner technologies would be competing on an "equal footing" as long as those social subsidies remain perpetually unrecognized is not a reasonable approach to take, I reckon.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,356
- Reaction score
- 49,391
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Sure, sure. You can make anything look bad loading in a bunch of questionable costs on it's back, cherry picking the data along he way.
Allowing green technologies to survive on government life support is going to thwart their innovation to be cost competitive in the market. If you really wanted to support a green revolution, one that's a permanent change, you wouldn't support the continued government life support. A green technology that comes close, say within 10%, of the cost of the traditional technology, would thrive in the marketplace and displace the older technology. Until then . . . kinda so much pissing money into the wind.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,809
- Reaction score
- 53,588
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's probably your next sentence.
They're not cost competitive now. Might they be in the future? I hope so.
Do you think China's air quality is justified by the cost savings? Is the market price really reflecting the cost of an energy source if I'm spewing mercury into the atmosphere and creating health problems?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,314
- Reaction score
- 4,112
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Questionable costs and cherry picking? :doh Hydrocarbon combustion produces smoke and fumes which are harmful to humans. This isn't some kind of far-fetched fringe notion that rabid environmentalists are trying to foist on the public. This a pretty basic fact which anyone who's stood downwind of a campfire or even heard a fire safety speech understands.
Abundant energy is necessary for the advance of civilization, so while no better alternatives existed we had to put up with dirty coal plants and car engines. Regulations have made them a bit cleaner over time, reducing emissions of visible smoke, lead and so on. But pretending that they are now already 100% clean and safe is naive in the extreme... especially when the evidence pretty obviously shows that they are not.
Coal might be the worst of them, but obviously car engines are contributing to urban health problems too, and no doubt the same applies for oil power plants too. These fuel sources are still enjoying a huge social subsidy, costs which are not paid by suppliers or consumers, but externalized onto everyone around them. That's even disregarding environmental and climate impacts entirely, though I can't imagine why we should disregard those.
But pretending that this is competition on an "equal footing" is obviously entirely incorrect. We can quibble over the best way to level the playing field - stronger regulations on combustion fuels to the point where their health and environmental impacts are as low as solar or wind; taxes to theoretically reflect their ongoing and future social impacts; or subsidies to increase competitiveness of alternatives - and I would agree with you that at this point subsidizing the alternatives is probably the worst of the three and an open invitation to lobbying and corruption (though was arguably useful as a kick-starter). There's pros and cons to both regulation and taxation but either way, especially now that we've got economically viable alternatives for almost all energy needs except aeronautics, the social toll of the dirtier 19th century energy sources should not be ignored.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,523
- Reaction score
- 22,172
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The executive summary sound a little of doom and gloom, but the full report includes other variables, and coal statistics from old style plants.
Mithre... Did you follow the source to the executive summary and full report?
Did you read any of either of them?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,314
- Reaction score
- 4,112
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And its conclusions and recommendations are accurately summarized in the link provided. Feel free to point out the discrepancy, if you believe one exists.
Combustion fuels can undoubtedly be made cleaner, and if that were enforced by regulation bringing the immediate and long-term health and environmental impacts down to levels comparable with renewable (or modern nuclear) alternatives, that would be fine. But that is not how things currently stand, in China or in the USA or Europe or Australia or probably anywhere else. And in many cases such requirements would and do make combustion fuels more expensive than the alternatives - which is the point I'm trying to make to Eohrnberger. For example while their less advanced couterparts are often cheaper, estimates of electricity generation costs from coal with IGCC or natural gas with CCS tend to be higher than geothermal, hydroelectric, onshore wind and modern nuclear power, and close to or higher even than solar photovoltaic power.
It's a complex issue and I certainly couldn't pretend to know a lot about it, but I don't think that I am wrong in pointing out that "Stop subsidies = equal footing" rhetoric is a simplistic and incorrect way of looking at it, which ignores the vast social subsidies or externalization of costs which have propped up combustion fuels in the past, and to some extent continue to do so.
A carbon tax is one way - arguably not the best, but apparently viable - of estimating one aspect of those costs and ensuring they're included in the market valuations.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,523
- Reaction score
- 22,172
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Their conclusions are also based on their punditry.
Did you read the "about" of the organization?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,523
- Reaction score
- 22,172
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The USA has done a very fine job of reducing limits of pollution. many coal plants have been **** down, and many modernized. There is no perfect solution. We need to try to fond balance between emissions and power output and costs. There will never be 100% agreement what is acceptable. I personally think the USA has done a real good job reigning in the coal plant pollution, and maintainability power costs. In don't believe we need to regulate in manners that drastically increase these costs.
Hiow can we contril what other countriews do?
I think we should have very high taxation on products from China, because they have high polluting power sources, and they undercut the us manufacturers. We have done well in the USA to mitigate pollution, and I see no sense making power even more expoensive without having a means of making it global. We will only hurt our own nation.
There is a limited supply of places to build geothermal and hydroelectric. We generate more than enough power for ourselves in the pacific northwest with hydro, but there are also no good places to expand it.
We need to stop subsidies. If a power costs more for power from wind or solar, then so be it. make the cosumers of those regions pay more, instead of spreading the costs among all tax payers.
I will agree to an aerosol tax. Not a carbon tax.