What are reasonable lifestyle adjustments re: global warming

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

This thread quickly devolved into a debate over Al Gore's hypocrisy, but there's the kernel of an interesting question in there.

What should we reasonably be expected to adjust, in our day-to-day lives, to counteract the issue of global warming? This question covers both legal and regulatory restrictions, as well as societal pressures.

Should governments give private citizens "air mile" quotas, in order to reduce emissions from aeroplanes? Why, or why not? If not that, should people who take regular holidays be viewed with a sort of contempt by society, in the same way that fly-tippers are viewed? Should restrictions be placed on engine sizes, and minimum efficiency figures be instituted, in cars? Should SUVs, and other excessively polluting vehicles, be banned outright? If not, should their drivers be viewed with contempt? Should restrictions on pets (who are extremely energy intensive, re: pet food) be instituted? Should there be a quota on dogs: one dog per household?

Basically, if you believe that global warming, and excessive pollution, is a great social ill, what steps should be taken to prevent it? How many restrictions on day-to-day life can be instituted, before we collectively say "that's enough"?

(I ask this as a firm believer in AGW, not a denier.)

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

if you believe that global warming, and excessive pollution, is a great social ill, what steps should be taken to prevent it?

Appropriate pricing mechanisms to reflect the cost of dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

How many restrictions on day-to-day life can be instituted, before we collectively say "that's enough"?

None. If you're willing to pay a steep enough price to engage in carbon-emission-intensive activities, then go for it.

The only thing I'll add is that, in addition to pricing carbon emissions appropriately, government does have a role in providing alternatives to some carbon-intensive activities. Creating and improving public transportation networks, for instance, and increasing the supply of housing convenient to public transportation: no matter how expensive owning and driving a car gets, people will still have to drive if there's no decent alternative.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Appropriate pricing mechanisms to reflect the cost of dumping carbon into the atmosphere.
None. If you're willing to pay a steep enough price to engage in carbon-emission-intensive activities, then go for it.

Why should pricing be used as a tool to limit carbon emissions? That just means richer people get to pollute the same, while only poorer people will have to alter their lifestyles. That might be effective, but does appear to me to be rather unfair. During previous war times some nations have experimented with ration cards. That seems to be a much fairer solution. Although ripe for all kinds of fraud.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

None. If you're willing to pay a steep enough price to engage in carbon-emission-intensive activities, then go for it.

Yup. Market processes will work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if market mechanisms exist to deal with them.

The reason we got into this mess in the first place is because we didn't realize that using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases was going to cost us farther down the line. Now that we realize it, we can use markets to internalize those costs.

So the question is, what lifestyle habits that we now have are going to turn out to be the most costly/expendable in a carbon-aware market economy, and thus will carry the highest incentives for adjusting them? Off the top of my head, I'd guess fossil fuel use for personal transportation, and energy inefficiency in commercial buildings.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rune

Why should pricing be used as a tool to limit carbon emissions? That just means richer people get to pollute the same, while only poorer people will have to alter their lifestyles. That might be effective, but does appear to me to be rather unfair. During previous war times some nations have experimented with ration cards. That seems to be a much fairer solution. Although ripe for all kinds of fraud.

Well, there is a sort of "ration-card" policy at the national level, where emissions targets are set for a country as a whole. The problem with doing that at an individual level, AFAICT, is that (as you note) those who can afford to pay for extra emissions will simply use their money to figure out ways to game the system.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Now that we realize it, we can use markets to internalize those costs.

yes, after decades of letting the now-rich get away without paying those costs.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Well, there is a sort of "ration-card" policy at the national level, where emissions targets are set for a country as a whole. The problem with doing that at an individual level, AFAICT, is that (as you note) those who can afford to pay for extra emissions will simply use their money to figure out ways to game the system.

If you want to push through changes that will markedly interfere with the comfort or wealth of the population then you will need broad support in the population. I think that if the people see a sizeable portion of the population (the rich or the well connected or the inteligensia or some other special group) managing to avoid making these changes, then any such support will be undermined. I know mine will. I’m not going to support any legislation aimed at reducing my carbon emissions until I feel such reductions are shared fairly by everybody.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rune

I think that if the people see a sizeable portion of the population (the rich or the well connected or the inteligensia or some other special group) managing to avoid making these changes, then any such support will be undermined.

No doubt there will be some loss of popular support for any policy that's perceived to favor the rich. The question is, will the loss of support be enough to prevent implementing the policy?

That doesn't always seem to be the case. For example, consider the high gas-tax policies of most Western European countries, which seem to maintain broad popular support even though they impact the non-wealthy more than the wealthy. A fuel rationing system would probably be in theory a better way to "share the burden fairly", but voters seem content to go on letting people use more gasoline if they can afford to buy more gasoline.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

No doubt there will be some loss of popular support for any policy that's perceived to favor the rich. The question is, will the loss of support be enough to prevent implementing the policy?

That doesn't always seem to be the case. For example, consider the high gas-tax policies of most Western European countries, which seem to maintain broad popular support even though they impact the non-wealthy more than the wealthy. A fuel rationing system would probably be in theory a better way to "share the burden fairly", but voters seem content to go on letting people use more gasoline if they can afford to buy more gasoline.

The fuel tax has been put in place for economic reasons, not to cut down on fuel consumption. If the wealthy buy more gas, they pay more tax and everybody is happy. Or at least those in favour of the tax are. Conceivable the rich using more gas, could even allow for a fuel tax-reduction on the poor when then projected tax revenues have been met. It is not a zero-sum game. Carbon emissions are. The rich are not going to create more carbon emissions allowances to the poor by emitting more carbon.

If a public park or forest or beach or other piece of public land was being overrun and needed to cut down on the number of visitors, this too could be done by setting a high admittance fee. But also in this case I don’t see why some random selection of people (the rich) should be able to enter the park and not another. Their wealth has nothing to do with the public land. It would be no more fair than saying only redhaired people could enter or another arbitrary selection of people.

Ones wealth and carbon emission limits are two different subjects that should have no overlap. Like for instance I would be fairly pissed if I found out wealthy people could buy out of conscription based military service. That would severely reduce my willingness to participate in such service. And I’m not going to accept the rich buying carbon offsets either. Although I guess that would make some sense.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Originally Posted by Rune

Like for instance I would be fairly pissed if I found out wealthy people could buy out of conscription based military service. That would severely reduce my willingness to participate in such service.

off topic, but you are aware that's what happened the last time we had a draft, right?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rune

The fuel tax has been put in place for economic reasons, not to cut down on fuel consumption.

Well, AFAICT it accomplishes both revenue generation and fuel consumption reduction, and both purposes seem to be widely recognized by policymakers, as this "Decision Maker's Guide" assessment indicates.

Originally Posted by Rune

If a public park or forest or beach or other piece of public land was being overrun and needed to cut down on the number of visitors, this too could be done by setting a high admittance fee. But also in this case I don’t see why some random selection of people (the rich) should be able to enter the park and not another.

How high is "high"? Is it acceptable to have an admittance fee set so that poor people can afford to use the park occasionally, while rich people can use it a lot? That way nobody is totally excluded from the park, but park use levels reflect ability to pay.

Originally Posted by Rune

Ones wealth and carbon emission limits are two different subjects that should have no overlap.

I quite agree that there ought to be a universal per-person emissions "baseline" of some sort so that everyone's most basic emissions requirements (like, say, breathing) can be met without payment. Beyond that, though, I'm not sure I see a persuasive reason for disqualifying market structures as a way to handle emissions reduction.

Beyond the basics like breathing, greenhouse gas emissions are essentially a byproduct of consumption. We don't ration other aspects of consumption on a per-person basis the way centralized command economies do; we let markets allocate consumption based on ability to pay.

[Chronos]

Why should pricing be used as a tool to limit carbon emissions? That just means richer people get to pollute the same, while only poorer people will have to alter their lifestyles. That might be effective, but does appear to me to be rather unfair.

Of course it's not fair, because life is not fair. This policy would hit the poor harder than the rich, because every policy ever enacted hits the poor harder than the rich. That's what "poor" and "rich" mean. If we avoided policies that hit the poor harder, we'd never do anything at all.

The rich can also afford to eat foi gras, caviar, and filet mignon every meal if they want, and I can't. Is this fair? Of course not. But it's not very realistic for me to complain about it.

[RickJay]

I know nobody wants to hear this, but, realistically, there's no voluntary carbon emission reduction approach that will ever have any significant impact on AGW, and talk to the contrary is pure fantasy and feelgoodism.

The only way you're going to control an externality is by putting a price on it. Whether it's cap and trade, offsets, laws, whatever; you control externalities by finding a way to make them expensive. That's going to hurt people. If you don't want to hurt people by putting a price on carbon emissions, then just accept that you cannot control carbon emissions, and get working on another solution. If you want to control carbon emissions, accept that it will inevitably hurt the poor more than the rich, and it'll hurt everyone at least a little.

Presumably, the consequences of not dealing with the issue now will cause even more hurt down the line, which is why you're accepting pain now. A rabies shot hurts, but it sure hurts a lot less than developing rabies.

[Sage Rat]

Nearly all emissions, from what I am aware, are from coal energy plants and cars. If you swap to nuclear energy and hybrid/electric cars, the problem is solved. (Or rather, it will be solved for the US. Then you have to convince China, Russia, and India to use more expensive, higher technology.)

The individual, making some sort of personal sacrifice is pointless and more importantly you're never going to get a majority of people to vote to sacrifice their quality of life for global warming.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Nearly all emissions, from what I am aware, are from coal energy plants and cars.

? How much are you calling "nearly all"? This graph on world greenhouse gas emissions by sector (based on 2000 data) indicates that worldwide, all transportation contributes 13.5% of emissions, and all electricity and heat generation contributes 24.6%. That adds up to less than 40% of total emissions for all transportation and electricity/heat generation combined, not just cars and coal-fired energy generation in particular. The figures are more or less corroborated by this simpler graph, which allocates 14% of emissions to all transportation and 21.3% to power stations.

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

If you swap to nuclear energy and hybrid/electric cars, the problem is solved. (Or rather, it will be solved for the US.

Hmm. Got cite? I can't find a sector-by-sector breakdown for US emissions that exactly parallels the worldwide one, but this graph indicates that transportation as a whole accounts for only 28% of US GHG emissions. AFAICT we'd still have about half our current emissions levels to deal with even if all power generation and all transportation went carbon-neutral tomorrow.

[Euphonious Polemic]

`

.

[Kimstu]

Um, thanks, EP. Did I miss a non-displayed graphic or spoiler box in your post or something?

[bannerrefugee]

It’s not just cost which can be used to regulate peoples behavior. Convenience of use and marketing play roles as well.

For example-auto’s are still the easiest way to travel in many parts of the US. In addition, auto use is heavily marketed. Once it becomes obvious that you can get from point a to b more easily by taking the train and auto use is not glamorized peoples behavior will start to change.

It was not to long ago recycling was unheard of. Making it easier to do and marketing it changed people’s behavior.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

? How much are you calling "nearly all"? This graph on world greenhouse gas emissions by sector (based on 2000 data) indicates that worldwide, all transportation contributes 13.5% of emissions, and all electricity and heat generation contributes 24.6%. That adds up to less than 40% of total emissions for all transportation and electricity/heat generation combined, not just cars and coal-fired energy generation in particular. The figures are more or less corroborated by this simpler graph, which allocates 14% of emissions to all transportation and 21.3% to power stations.

Cutting out nearly 40% of emissions, wholesale, is pretty substantial and more importantly feasible. You don't need to reduce emissions to 0. For instance, agricultural emissions are likely unchanged from the world before humans because, surprise, there were plants and animals occupying the land before humans came in. And more importantly, you can't stop producing food.

We can move to alternate sources of energy than petrol and coal, on the other hand. And if you think that cutting out 40% of all emissions is insubstantial, I'd have to wonder how much you think the world would be improved by getting rid of business class on airplanes.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley

What should we reasonably be expected to adjust, in our day-to-day lives, to counteract the issue of global warming? This question covers both legal and regulatory restrictions, as well as societal pressures.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I doubt that there will ever be meaningful action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions either in the United States or worldwide. Our government is controlled by corporations and special interest groups, as are most other governments. Those who have a financial interest in blocking CO2 reductions hold the power, and I see no feasible way to change that. Legislation may get passed that claims to address the problem, but it will always be watered down so as to achieve almost nothing. Far more likely that legislation will always be used to jack up the use a fossil fuels and other pollutants, so that some of the world's richest people can become even richer.

I have every respect for people who are voluntarily making sacrifices to reduce their carbon footprint. If you're willing to wash your clothes on cold cycle, good for you. (It basically makes no difference in terms of the cleanliness of clothes.) If you're willing to air dry your clothes rather than using the dryer, good for you. (The dryer is the second most energy-hungry device in a typical home, with air conditioning coming first.) If you're will to put on a sweater rather than turning the heat up, great.

But I don't expect to see any useful legislation.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Cutting out nearly 40% of emissions, wholesale, is pretty substantial and more importantly feasible. You don't need to reduce emissions to 0. For instance, agricultural emissions are likely unchanged from the world before humans because, surprise, there were plants and animals occupying the land before humans came in. And more importantly, you can't stop producing food.

Before humans, there were a lot more plants and a lot fewer animals. Because plants absorb carbon dioxide while animals emit it, that helped keep it out of the atmosphere. There's some evidence that human agricultural practices have been warming the planet since the dawn of agriculture, because even early civilizations may have added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by draining swamps and burning forests. But agricultural emissions, though exaggerated in some cases, are definitely a significant contributor to global warming.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by bannerrefugee

For example-auto’s are still the easiest way to travel in many parts of the US. In addition, auto use is heavily marketed. Once it becomes obvious that you can get from point a to b more easily by taking the train and auto use is not glamorized peoples behavior will start to change.

The reason that train use never took off in the US is because it's not cost effective. We are too sprawled out. Countries like Japan with a high population density or like France where you can walk from one city to the next (for instance, I have walked from Nice to Monaco) in just a couple of hours make it reasonable for trains to be a standard method of transportation. That same walk from Nice to Monaco only gets me to the suburbs of Seattle.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Before humans, there were a lot more plants and a lot fewer animals. Because plants absorb carbon dioxide while animals emit it, that helped keep it out of the atmosphere. There's some evidence that human agricultural practices have been warming the planet since the dawn of agriculture, because even early civilizations may have added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by draining swamps and burning forests. But agricultural emissions, though exaggerated in some cases, are definitely a significant contributor to global warming.

That is almost certainly incorrect. The number of predators is limited to the number of herbivores, and the number of herbivores is limited to the amount of plant matter. You can't increase the biomass of animals on the planet without increasing the amount of plant biomass. You can however have an excess of plants.

No food. No live.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Rune

Why should pricing be used as a tool to limit carbon emissions? That just means richer people get to pollute the same, while only poorer people will have to alter their lifestyles. That might be effective, but does appear to me to be rather unfair.

Only to the extent that life is unfair: rich people get to buy a whole lot more of just about anything than poor people do.

During previous war times some nations have experimented with ration cards. That seems to be a much fairer solution. Although ripe for all kinds of fraud.

Or have fully auctionable cap-and-trade, with the government sharing most or all of the money raised with everyone on a per-capita basis. If your lifestyle generates less carbon than the mean (not the median), you come out ahead. And affluence correlates strongly with carbon generation: more stuff, more travel, bigger houses, less use of public transportation for local travel, all of which involve more CO2.

The thing is, market mechanisms generally work in terms of giving people easily comparable choices. Rather than having to figure out how many ration cards I need for this or that, and how I'm going to bring my carbon consumption in under the cap, I simply make choices based on what I can afford. The fact that market failures exist and are sometimes important doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of the time, nothing can beat markets for simplicity and effectiveness.

[bannerrefugee]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

The reason that train use never took off in the US is because it's not cost effective. We are too sprawled out.

Public transportation is ineffective in many parts of the US for many reasons including those in my first post. Urban sprawl is an excuse & poor planning should be fixed not excused.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Nearly all emissions, from what I am aware, are from coal energy plants and cars. If you swap to nuclear energy and hybrid/electric cars, the problem is solved. (Or rather, it will be solved for the US.

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

And if you think that cutting out 40% of all emissions is insubstantial, I'd have to wonder how much you think the world would be improved by getting rid of business class on airplanes.

I didn't say that cutting 40% of emissions would be insubstantial. I just questioned your attribution of "nearly all" emissions to those two categories which add up to less than 40% of the total.

I also questioned your assertion that cutting out that 40% of total emissions would make the "problem solved". AFAICT, recent studies suggest that the minimum truly effective level of emissions cuts to mitigate expected warming effects is more like 70%.

If you're going to make sweeping and inaccurate unsupported generalizations, please don't shift the goalposts when your statements are questioned. I certainly don't disagree that it would be a great thing to cut out emissions from coal-fired power plants and from private cars, but it is incorrect to state that those two sources account for "nearly all" emissions, or that if we could eliminate them we'd have the "problem solved".

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

If you're going to make sweeping and inaccurate unsupported generalizations, please don't shift the goalposts when your statements are questioned. I certainly don't disagree that it would be a great thing to cut out emissions from coal-fired power plants and from private cars, but it is incorrect to state that those two sources account for "nearly all" emissions, or that if we could eliminate them we'd have the "problem solved".

Let's say then that this is the majority of everything that can reasonably be cut.

[Chief Pedant]

I hope the solution which is effected is along the lines of market-based cap and trade because that will open a new market and create a potential for making money. I'm nervous about placing my personal financial bets now because I don't think there will be the public will to effect any broad solutions at all. However as soon as I see a reasonably predictable consensus, I will be placing some personal financial bets on that new market even though I am skeptical it will effect any real change. I don't need to buy into AGW to make money off it, after all...I just need to predict the collective belief accurately and it's probably early to be shorting Florida coastline.

It seems to me two factors are in play.

The first is that we do not, as a society, have a very good history of acting for the common good if it actually impinges upon our personal lifestyle. We give to the collective good from our excess. We do not easily give up personal luxury, and we define luxury fairly liberally. We usually refer to it as "necessity" as in "I need to live in this size home."

The second factor is that there is a huge part of the world not yet developed. We can do whatever we want in the West; India and China alone represent a couple billion under-developed populations who are not going to consider shaping up until they catch up. And frankly, they sort of have a point.


I also note that we have already voted with our feet. The economy tanks. Less consumption all across every parameter. What is our response? Rejoicing that AGW has suddenly slowed? No sirree Bob. We pump money as fast as we can to get ourselves back on our consuming feet. We have already come face to face with the choice between consumption and AGW and we voted for consumption.

And as I pointed out in the other thread: we don't like to be the first guy to limit our personal lifestyle. First class ticket, please. The plane is going to fly regardless, so why wouldn't I go first class? I would be an idiot to trust that enough people are going to join my first-class ticket boycott to effect a difference. We are all waiting for the other guy. So no one joins the lone Quixote boycotting first.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by Rumor_Watkins

off topic, but you are aware that's what happened the last time we had a draft, right?

We still have a draft and rich people are not able to buy their way out.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rune

We still have a draft and rich people are not able to buy their way out.

Pre-emptive clarification: IIRC, Rune is based in Denmark where they still have a mandatory military service requirement for young men.

Rune, Americans tend to think of the military draft as something that ended with the Vietnam War. At that time, the US had instituted draft exemptions for men in college and men serving in the National Guard, both of which were regarded to some extent as "safe havens" more easily accessible to those with wealth and influence. Hence the comment about the rich being able to buy themselves out of the draft.

[Sam Stone]

I'd be fully on board with carbon pricing, except that I don't think the AGW crowd would ever accept it as the final answer, even if the entire world got on board.

Accepted values for the cost of externalities of CO2 range from $20 to as high as $200 per tonne. This is a huge range, which means it's going to be hard to find agreement.

I have a hard time believing that if we managed to tax carbon at an equitable price, that the AGW lobby would just say, "There! Problem solved. Now we can all stop lobbying and find something else to worry about."

The other assurance I would want is that the tax is revenue neutral, and not just another excuse to extract money from the private sector and put it in the public sector. I have absolutely zero faith that that would happen.

The Suzuki Institute in Canada says that a $200 per tonne tax on carbon in Canada should be spent on renewable energy ($6.9 billion per year), and on 'investment in home energy efficiency' ($24.6 billion per year). The balance would be 'earmarked for other uses'.

It's hard to imagine an ongoing investment of 25 billion dollars a year into home energy efficiency wouldn't rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns. And there's no evidence that 7 billion dollars a year in Canadian alternative energy investment would be money well spent. I doubt if we have the physical or human resources to absorb that kind of money indefinitely, unless we started doing very expensive things like putting solar panels on every roof. This would be a huge, heavyweight burden on the economy - according to the institute, the taxes required to push Canada's carbon output down to the recommended level, it would cost $50 billion per year. Or looked at another way, it would shift $50 billion per year out of the private sector and into the public sector.

Before I'd sign on to any kind of tax like that, I would want assurances that this isn't just backdoor socialism like Van Jones' "Green Jobs" initiative, which turned out to be just a way to take money from the rich and give it to the poor for makework jobs. I'd want it to be revenue neutral - A $200 carbon tax would raise the equivalent of half of all Canadian income taxes. So sure, put a $200 tax on carbon, but cut income taxes in half at the same time.

Of course, this transparency in cost is why governments are moving away from carbon taxes and towards 'cap and trade'. And this I won't support in any form, because cap and trade just becomes a mechanism for government to assert direct control over industry, to choose winners and losers, and to raise huge sums of money through indirect taxation that is not at all transparent.

Along these lines, I would also demand that any carbon pricing scheme be evenly applied to all sources of carbon emission, and that governments do not draft bills riddled with exceptions for favored constituents and industries. Good luck with that. For example, I'd even add in the carbon footprint of the cattle industry from methane emissions. Good luck passing that in Iowa.

But if our carbon pricing scheme is complex and riddled with exemptions, it will distort markets and do a lot of damage outside of the damage caused by the tax itself.

But before the west does any of this, it has to have absolute assurance that China, India, and Russia will play along. Because otherwise, any reductions in fossil fuels here will be an implicit subsidy on fossil fuel burning in those countries, and I have absolutely no desire to subsidize the energy-inefficient lifestyles of the Russians or the Chinese with my tax dollars - especially if it doesn't have much of an effect on global warming in the first place.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. If we ever do get a treaty, it will be a feel-good document signed by countries with no intent to adhere to it. And it will only pass with so many compromises, exemptions, subsidies and other giveaways that it will be meaningless and irrelevant the day it is passed. Just like Kyoto was.

A better solution needs to be found.

[Sam Stone]

A Better Solution.

So how can the flaws in a global, voluntary reduction treaty be fixed? First of all, don't rely on the rest of the world. I think it's folly to believe that China, Russia, and India will act in any way other than in their own interests. And they all have big interests in cheap fossil fuel: Russia sells it, and the Chinese and Indians consume it.

One way to deal with that problem is to simply ignore it. Assume they aren't going to play along, and decide how much extra you're willing to spend to reduce your own footprint, then just go ahead and do it.

The fairest way to do that would be for the government to place a tax on carbon, with the money directly going to subsidies for non-carbon producing energy. No favorites, no direct payments to companies for research, or anything like that. Government could simply offer a price for energy, then resell it at a lower price as a broker. Anyone who can manufacture energy at a lower price can sell it to the government, then the government sells it to the utilities at the market price for, say, coal. Even other fossil fuels, only their sales will be taxed for the carbon. The tax makes the fossil fuels more expensive, and non-fossil fuels cheaper. It puts all energy on a level playing field.

Now let the alternative energy market fight it out for the government market price. If nuclear can produce enough energy at the lowest subsidy cost, then it'll get the market share. If wind can do it, wind wins. More likely, they would also continually jockey for market share like companies in other markets do.

These is probably a pretty inexpensive way to go about this, because some of the alternative sources like nuclear and wind are already approaching the cost of fossil fuels. With the additional competition for a huge market the subsidy would bring, we might see faster advancement and eventually become just as economically efficient.

The long-term answer to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuel, and the only way that's going to happen is if people stop using voluntarily because better alternatives are available. The best way to do that is to open up markets to alternative energy and allow the forces of the free market to sort out how to supply it.

I would extend this to allow individuals to sell their energy at the government price as well. That opens the door to entrepreneurship. Someone with a local geothermal source or excess power from a farm windmill can sell it to the government at a profit.

Economically, a price ceiling above the market price behaves sort of like 'prizes' do in spurring innovation. Think of it this way: When companies are competing to provide the lowest-cost energy, there's no sense spending money to research or develop and energy source that is less efficient than the one you've got. But with a price ceiling, the fact that some companies can produce energy for 4 cents per kwh has no relevance for your own profitability if you can make energy for 7 cents per kwh, so long as both of you can sell as much as you make for 10 cents/kwh. Any energy source cheaper than the government price is now profitable.

Over time, the government price should come down as we converge on the most efficient alternative energies, eventually meeting the price of carbon with a subsidy of zero. That would be the holy grail.

And once we know how to do it, China and India and Russia will be forced to change, because it will be their energy that is now too expensive.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I'd be fully on board with carbon pricing, except that I don't think the AGW crowd would ever accept it as the final answer, even if the entire world got on board.

Accepted values for the cost of externalities of CO2 range from $20 to as high as $200 per tonne. This is a huge range, which means it's going to be hard to find agreement.

I have a hard time believing that if we managed to tax carbon at an equitable price, that the AGW lobby would just say, "There! Problem solved. Now we can all stop lobbying and find something else to worry about."

It's hard to argue with a faith-based argument. And cap-and-trade sets the target for carbon output, and lets the market sort out the price. And you see environmentalists going on about the ozone hole these days? We fixed that puppy with cap and trade, IIRC.

The other assurance I would want is that the tax is revenue neutral, and not just another excuse to extract money from the private sector and put it in the public sector. I have absolutely zero faith that that would happen.

Again, hard to argue against faith. And it seems awfully selfish of you to put the religion of your tribe (low taxes) ahead of doing something about climate catastrophe, anyway.

Before I'd sign on to any kind of tax like that, I would want assurances that this isn't just backdoor socialism like Van Jones' "Green Jobs" initiative, which turned out to be just a way to take money from the rich and give it to the poor for makework jobs. I'd want it to be revenue neutral - A $200 carbon tax would raise the equivalent of half of all Canadian income taxes. So sure, put a $200 tax on carbon, but cut income taxes in half at the same time.

Seriously, this is "if we don't save the world from climate catastrophe in a way that matches up with my other axes to grind that have nothing to do with climate, then screw the world" territory.

Do you realize what a morally repugnant stance this is?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Appropriate pricing mechanisms to reflect the cost of dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

How is this priced? What is the cost of dumping a tonne of carbon into the atmosphere, how is it determined, and does it vary from country to country?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Seriously, this is "if we don't save the world from climate catastrophe in a way that matches up with my other axes to grind that have nothing to do with climate, then screw the world" territory.

Welllllll, on the other hand. I generally concur that Sam Stone is too much of a low-tax absolutist for my taste, and I roll my eyes at his fulminations against government spending programs, but I think there is a case to be made for at least trying to keep the effects of a carbon tax approximately revenue-neutral.

A significant upward shift in total tax levels is definitely going to inspire some large-scale changes in economic behavior, and it doesn't sound like a great idea to me to stack those changes on top of the changes that are inevitably going to result from the unprecedented concept of marketizing the atmosphere. Let's try not to rock the boat more than we have to right at the start, at least.

Yes, if the costs of climate change mean that we do need to significantly raise taxes to cope with it, then we'll have to do that. But AIUI the purpose of a carbon tax at the present moment would be primarily to discourage greenhouse gas emissions via economic disincentives, not to increase tax revenue per se.

Moreover, if we treat a carbon tax as a partial replacement for income tax rather than as an addition to it, we will be effectively shifting our tax structure to some extent from taxing income to taxing consumption (and waste), a move that is favorably viewed by a number of progressive economists, such as Robert Frank. So we'd keep Sam Stone happy and get our "backdoor socialism" too.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Welllllll, on the other hand. I generally concur that Sam Stone is too much of a low-tax absolutist for my taste, and I roll my eyes at his fulminations against government spending programs, but I think there is a case to be made for at least trying to keep the effects of a carbon tax approximately revenue-neutral.

I agree with you that there is a case for making cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) revenue neutral or close to it. (I'd personally disagree, citing the need to use some of the revenues to finance the creation of intracity and intercity rail infrastructure that would give people less carbon-expensive ways of getting around, but that's another debate.)

The reason I find Sam's stance morally repugnant is that he doesn't just want to make the case; he says that as far as he's concerned, it's his way or no way at all. If they're not revenue neutral, then let the globe fry.

I don't believe I'm mischaracterizing his words here. I hope, though, that on seeing how they look through other eyes, he might reconsider his position.

[Shodan]

It might help a little if we elected a sensible President and Senate Majority Leader instead of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber like we got now.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I agree with you that there is a case for making cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) revenue neutral or close to it. (I'd personally disagree, citing the need to use some of the revenues to finance the creation of intracity and intercity rail infrastructure that would give people less carbon-expensive ways of getting around, but that's another debate.)

The reason I find Sam's stance morally repugnant is that he doesn't just want to make the case; he says that as far as he's concerned, it's his way or no way at all. If they're not revenue neutral, then let the globe fry.

I don't believe I'm mischaracterizing his words here. I hope, though, that on seeing how they look through other eyes, he might reconsider his position.

I could look at it the other way around... Why are you trying to play games with the planet and using such an important issue to sneak social policy in the back door? Why can't you commit to agreeing that we'll tackle climate change without using it as an excuse to grow the size and scope of government?

I'm the one trying to focus on the planet. You're the one all incensed because I won't let you hold the planet hostage for 'progressive' political causes.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I could look at it the other way around... Why are you trying to play games with the planet and using such an important issue to sneak social policy in the back door?

Financing ways to reduce carbon emissions is 'playing games with the planet'?

I'm not even going to bother to take that seriously.

Why can't you commit to agreeing that we'll tackle climate change without using it as an excuse to grow the size and scope of government?

Who else is going to build subways or light rail networks?

It is to laugh. We're not even in the same universe, here.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I could look at it the other way around... Why are you trying to play games with the planet and using such an important issue to sneak social policy in the back door? Why can't you commit to agreeing that we'll tackle climate change without using it as an excuse to grow the size and scope of government?

I'm the one trying to focus on the planet. You're the one all incensed because I won't let you hold the planet hostage for 'progressive' political causes.

An interesting take on it.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Why can't you commit to agreeing that we'll tackle climate change without using it as an excuse to grow the size and scope of government?

I'm the one trying to focus on the planet. You're the one all incensed because I won't let you hold the planet hostage for 'progressive' political causes.

You're kidding, right? Show me where I'm holding the planet hostage for anything.

I have nowhere said where, say, funding for rail has to be included, or no deal. I have simply said that's what I think should be included. For instance, I think that the climate bill passed by the House had absolutely abominable compromises and concessions in it. It's still better than nothing, IMHO, and if that's the only sort of climate bill that can get through Congress, I'm supporting it. How's that for left-wing absolutism?

You're the one who's said if it's not revenue neutral, the planet can fry.

Any child over the age of four can see who's willing to compromise for the greater good, and who's saying, 'screw the world if I don't get my way.'

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Blake

An interesting take on it.

It is a Libertarian take.

[Kimstu]

I don't think we need to let this devolve into a dispute over comparative levels of obstinacy concerning choices for climate policy, rather than a debate on the choices for climate policy themselves.

I think it's more helpful to focus on Sam's specific recommendations for policy choices and his rationales for preferring them, and ignore the rather hostile and dictatorial "if I don't get what I want I'm going to take my marbles and leave!" tone in which he presents them. No ultimatums from Sam are going to make or break any climate policy decisions anyway, so let it go.

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I'd personally disagree, citing the need to use some of the revenues to finance the creation of intracity and intercity rail infrastructure that would give people less carbon-expensive ways of getting around, but that's another debate.

I concur that some government-funded infrastructure projects are going to be valuable, and perhaps necessary, in transitioning to the carbon-market economy that you and Sam advocate. But I'm not yet quite convinced that they'd have to skew revenue neutrality significantly. Aren't these policies going to be saving us buttloads of cash in other subsidies, such as automobile transport and fossil fuel use? Do we know for certain that shifting taxes and subsidies in the proposed ways will necessarily mean a net revenue decrease that will require increasing taxes?

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't think we need to let this devolve into a dispute over comparative levels of obstinacy concerning choices for climate policy, rather than a debate on the choices for climate policy themselves.

It seems to me that debate over climate policy is a nice, safe discussion to have.

Such debate allows us to defer indefinitely a more tender discussion: "What are reasonable lifestyle adjustments re: global warming? What should we reasonably be expected to adjust, in our day-to-day lives, to counteract the issue of global warming? ".

Would any AGW realists wish to advance a particular lifestyle adjustment? Should we avoid flying first class now (just to take an example out of the blue), or may we wait until climate policy legislates which adjustments we should make?

I assume any proscription of what I as an AGW ignoramus should do would reflect a proscription for all. That is to say, if it's an AGW-based lifestyle sin for me, it's an AGW sin for all. I am looking for guidance from those who believe in this Cause.

What is a specific, concrete "reasonable lifestyle adjustment re: global warming" that applies to all?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

"What are reasonable lifestyle adjustments re: global warming? What should we reasonably be expected to adjust, in our day-to-day lives, to counteract the issue of global warming? ".

Would any AGW realists wish to advance a particular lifestyle adjustment? Should we avoid flying first class now (just to take an example out of the blue), or may we wait until climate policy legislates which adjustments we should make? [...]

What is a specific, concrete "reasonable lifestyle adjustment re: global warming" that applies to all?

The thing is that the answer to such a question depends largely on policy choices. For example, if it's suggested that nobody should have more than one car per household, then determining whether or not that adjustment is "reasonable" depends on what alternatives are available. If there's abundant convenient public transportation, then such a requirement is much more reasonable than it would be if people without cars have to walk five miles to get anywhere they want to go.

I understand that your goal, in the concurrent AGW thread as well as this one, is to make this a "gotcha" game, where you can argue that people concerned about AGW impacts must be insincere and hence unworthy of serious consideration if they won't issue rigid draconian universal rules of emissions-reducing personal conduct. But I'm afraid you're not going to get anybody in a serious discussion of emissions reduction strategies to play that game with you. Perhaps the most constructive thing you can do here is to declare victory and go away, leaving the discussion to those who are actually interested in trying to identify effective policy choices for emissions reductions, as per the OP's request.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't think we need to let this devolve into a dispute over comparative levels of obstinacy concerning choices for climate policy, rather than a debate on the choices for climate policy themselves.

I think it's more helpful to focus on Sam's specific recommendations for policy choices and his rationales for preferring them, and ignore the rather hostile and dictatorial "if I don't get what I want I'm going to take my marbles and leave!" tone in which he presents them. No ultimatums from Sam are going to make or break any climate policy decisions anyway, so let it go.

I wasn't trying to make it a personal ultimatum. I was speaking more generally - there is great opposition to climate change legislation, and in part it is driven by the suspicion among many on the right that this is another issue the left is trying to use to drive social policy in the direction they want it to go.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'watermelon'. It's a pejorative used against environmentalists - 'green on the outside, red on the inside'. And there is some truth to it, unfortunately. It has always seemed suspicious to the right that the environmental movement always seems to think that every solution to every environmental problem seems to involve implementing progressive social policy.

It's refreshing to hear people like you, who are willing to separate the problem from the solution, and at least entertain the possibility that perhaps markets can solve the problem with the right incentives in place. Unfortunately, the environmental movement is largely driven from the left, and therefore it always seems to go hand in hand with big government, lots of regulations, and progressive social policy.

Take the 'Green Jobs' initiative of Van Jones. It's nothing more than a scheme to tax rich people and funnel the money down to the poor. There's nothing about it that will create wealth, build a new economy, or probably even be particularly green. It's just a new set of clothes on the same old left-wing ideas. Every time environmentalism gets hijacked by ideologues like Jones, it becomes more difficult to get consensus for the tough choices that need to be made.

The point I'm making is that tying climate change legislation to 'progressive' causes and left-wing policies makes it less likely that climate change policy will ever get enough support to be enacted. If you care about the planet more than you do about progressive politics and wealth redistribution, you'll divest the debate over climate change from partisan politics and seek a bigger tent.

I think you understand this, Kimstu. It's a shame there are so many on your side who don't.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

The thing is that the answer to such a question depends largely on policy choices. For example, if it's suggested that nobody should have more than one car per household, then determining whether or not that adjustment is "reasonable" depends on what alternatives are available. If there's abundant convenient public transportation, then such a requirement is much more reasonable than it would be if people without cars have to walk five miles to get anywhere they want to go.

Having government regulate specifics like how many cars you can own is exactly the wrong way to go about it. First, government will get it wrong. Governments are terrible at micro-managing people's choices.

A far better way to go would be for government to put general incentives in place through carbon taxes, and let the free market sort out the details. Is it worse to own two cars than one? What if they are both Priuses? What if one is a collector's car or a boulevard cruiser that only drives 1,000 miles per year? What if I'm willing to live in a smaller house in exchange for having a car that burns a little more gas?

Government should not be involved at that level of decision-making. It won't do it right.

As an example, the government takes generally the right tack on CAFE standards. It doesn't tell the auto industry how much power their engines can have, or how many trucks they can make, how how heavy the vehicles are. Those are engineering and market decisions the government is not qualified to make. Rather it just says, "Hey, do what you want, but your fleet had better average at least X miles per gallon."

Can you imagine the mess if government was involved in every engineering decision affecting fuel economy? For example, had it tried to control fuel economy by mandating that cars could not be heavier than, say, 3,000 lbs, we'd probably have lighter cars today, but we wouldn't have global chassis, shared architectures, and all the safety gadgets we have today, because those are responsible for the rise in vehicle weight. And trying to meet CAFE standards with heavier vehicles drove innovations in vehicle design that weren't even on the horizon when the first CAFE standards were instituted. CVT transmissions, direct injection, variable displacement technology, computerized spark advance, hybrid motors... None of which might have happened had the government tried to control fuel economy by directly meddling in the engineering design of the cars.

As for how much sacrifice is required, here's a simple question for the Global Warming crowd: Has France done enough. 70% of its energy comes from nuclear power. Is that good enough for you?

If so, then the answer is that our lifestyle restrictions don't have to be so bad. Moving to a nuclear power infrastructure might cost a few tens of billions of dollars per year more in overall energy costs, but that's a manageable sum that wouldn't greatly impact lifestyles.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I wasn't trying to make it a personal ultimatum. I was speaking more generally - there is great opposition to climate change legislation, and in part it is driven by the suspicion among many on the right that this is another issue the left is trying to use to drive social policy in the direction they want it to go.

You're right - we want to keep the world from heating up excessively. That's the direction we want social policy to go.

But unlike you, we're fairly flexible about how we get there.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'watermelon'. It's a pejorative used against environmentalists - 'green on the outside, red on the inside'. And there is some truth to it, unfortunately. It has always seemed suspicious to the right that the environmental movement always seems to think that every solution to every environmental problem seems to involve implementing progressive social policy.

First I'd heard of the expression.

And conservatives view tax cuts as the solution to every problem, if we're gonna paint with a broad brush. Sheesh!

Also, I don't understand your definition of 'social policy.' Have we tacked DADT repeal onto Clean Air Act amendments, or something? Gotta say, I missed that.

Funny, the solutions I've seen to environmental problems have usually been pretty focused on the actual causes. Coal-burning plants putting sulfur dioxide into the air? Put scrubbers on the smokestacks. Fisheries being overfished? Place catch limits or moratoriums on fishing. Wildlife habitat being chewed up? Buy up land, put wilderness protections on it, stuff like that.

Unfortunately, the environmental movement is largely driven from the left, and therefore it always seems to go hand in hand with big government, lots of regulations, and progressive social policy.

This is what mathematicians call "handwaving."

Take the 'Green Jobs' initiative of Van Jones. It's nothing more than a scheme to tax rich people and funnel the money down to the poor. There's nothing about it that will create wealth, build a new economy, or probably even be particularly green. It's just a new set of clothes on the same old left-wing ideas. Every time environmentalism gets hijacked by ideologues like Jones, it becomes more difficult to get consensus for the tough choices that need to be made.

Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's make a bunch of unsupported assertions that are sufficiently off-topic to avoid serious challenge, and use those as supporting evidence for our main points!

If you care about the planet more than you do about progressive politics and wealth redistribution,

I don't see any evidence that many advocates of action to reduce climate change have made wealth redistribution and other progressive issues a precondition. Sure, if we can do two good things at once, why not - but I don't see anyone laying down a gauntlet over any of this.

For instance, taking the proceeds of fully auctionable cap-and-trade, and rebating them to the citizenry on a per-capita basis, would in fact be redistributive - as well as revenue-neutral. But there's a pretty good argument for that: the climate belongs to all of us equally, so the monies paid for permits to dump carbon into the atmosphere should be shared equally.

But it's not like anyone is saying, if we don't do it that way, then let the planet bake.

you'll divest the debate over climate change from partisan politics and seek a bigger tent.

Partisan politics? When the GOP shows an interest in dealing honestly with climate change, let me know. I see how Tim Pawlenty's gone from being an advocate of dealing with climate change, to pretty much a denialist, apparently in hopes of winning the 2012 GOP nomination.

And he is - or until recently, was - one of the most 'mainstream' members of your party.

Tell me again how it's all us libruls' fault that partisan politics has undermined the climate change debate.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I was speaking more generally - there is great opposition to climate change legislation, and in part it is driven by the suspicion among many on the right that this is another issue the left is trying to use to drive social policy in the direction they want it to go.

I understand, and I think it is not entirely unreasonable for RTF to characterize that (general) resistance as somewhat irresponsible, if it involves opposing necessary policy measures largely on the grounds of chronic "leftophobia".

However, I think that over-scrutiny of the opposition's motives on both the left and the right is mostly a distraction from the more important task of sussing out the common ground. How stupid would we have to be to sit here screaming at each other "You're willing to destroy the economy if we can't reach agreement on a viable strategy!" and "You're willing to trash the planet if we can't reach agreement on a viable strategy!" rather than actually investigating to see if we can reach agreement on a viable strategy?

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'watermelon'. It's a pejorative used against environmentalists - 'green on the outside, red on the inside'. And there is some truth to it, unfortunately. It has always seemed suspicious to the right that the environmental movement always seems to think that every solution to every environmental problem seems to involve implementing progressive social policy.

Well yes, environmentalism does often go with liberal/leftist attitudes in other areas too. (Though I would think that proud conservatives would be ashamed to let the liberals own this issue to the extent they do, given the important contributions of some non-liberals like Teddy Roosevelt in launching the modern conservation/environmental movement.)

But to some extent, I think conservatives will just have to grit their teeth and accept that under present conditions, taking action on the environment will intrinsically require liberal-type policies in many cases. This is not because liberals are nicer people and love the planet more, but because conservatives and libertarians in recent decades have (somewhat short-sightedly, IMHO) successfully branded all forms of regulation as a "liberal" strategy. And what we need now, in order to be able to internalize the very distorting costs of carbon emissions, is primarily a big-ass regulation that will make the atmosphere into a market resource instead of a free unregulated infinite carbon sink.

Once the right manages to choke down that bitter spoonful of acquiescence, we can start making use of market strategies, as RTF and you propose, to bring about emissions reductions rather than depending totally on governmental dictates to bring about change. I think conservatives and libertarians can end up being very happy in a more environmentally aware economy where smart sustainable thinking can earn its proper economic value. But they're going to have to hold their noses and temporarily put on their despised liberal hats in order to get to that place.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Having government regulate specifics like how many cars you can own is exactly the wrong way to go about it. First, government will get it wrong. Governments are terrible at micro-managing people's choices.

A far better way to go would be for government to put general incentives in place through carbon taxes, and let the free market sort out the details.

Funny, that's the sort of progressive policy that we libruls have been advocating. Via cap-and-trade rather than tax, but same difference, except in optics.

There's no pleasing you guys.

As an example, the government takes generally the right tack on CAFE standards.

How can you say that? That's progressive social policy, I tell you!!

As for how much sacrifice is required, here's a simple question for the Global Warming crowd: Has France done enough. 70% of its energy comes from nuclear power. Is that good enough for you?

Again, "how much sacrifice is required" is the wrong question, and really a pretty silly one. Institute a cap, auction off the permits, and, like you say, let the market do its magic.

The only places I'd like to see the government spend money on this is where the market isn't going to generate alternatives. If people want to get out of their cars altogether, the market isn't going to create a light-rail network.