I don’t know the details. My impression is that you can’t get more than 10-20% of your energy from solar because it is unreliable unless we develop large scale storage technology.
However, in the long run, I think solar is the best bet because it doesn’t require any grid upkeep. Bypassing the grid seems like a logical evolutionary step in electricity generation the same way we skipped phone lines and moved to cellular. Plus in the 3rd world, having localized energy would be easier than grid electric (Africa’s population will explode this century and solar would be easier than building nuclear grids everywhere).
Sadly I’m short on details. But right now the US only spends about $50 billion a year on renewables. I’d drastically increase federal subsidies into renewables (manufacturing, R&D, installation, etc). I assume there is a multiplier effect of 2-3, meaning every $1 in subsidies also causes an extra $2-3 in private spending to match it.
So if the federal government added $50 billion a year into subsidies, maybe the US would spend $200 billion a year on renewables instead of $50. That could drastically speed up development of cheap storage technology and adoption of solar.
I know nuclear is probably necessary as a bridge, but I’m hoping ‘sometime’ this century we have both affordable solar and affordable storage technology.
Why the fuck would you go straight to China, the least bullyable nation besides (arguably) the US on the planet? Why not go straight to the other 186 nations, where we could have a lot more influence?
Edit: also, you are not accurately representing your cite. This isn’t out of 195 nations, it’s out of the 32 top polluters. Seven countries have taken actions or made commitments to fully meet the goals. Another ten are taking actions that are deemed insufficient. And one of those seven? India.
And then even China, while not doing enough now, is however working to do something.
That was Greenpeace, that while I do have problems against them regarding their position on nuclear power, is not a friend of China’s coal policy in general. The Guardian also noted elsewere that the ones talking about a huge number of coal plants being planned are missing a lot.
So, yeah that “1,600 new coal plants” number is one reason why I’m not so much into this discussion, as noted it is hard to talk about workable solutions when the OP is working with not so accurate or spinned information.
Nuclear power - I agree that increased use of nuclear power should be an important part of CO2 reduction. BTW, Miss AOC does not advocate premature shutdowns of nuclear plants, IIUC, but I think she and her ilk should go much further. (I guess nuclear waste disposal is an on-going problem. Perhaps a national emergency could be declared to cope with that. )
Rather than itemizing different energy sources, emphasis should also be given to ways to conserve energy. For example, revitalizing urban centers might reduce commute times. Would this have significant impact? I favor free-market solutions. External costs should be assessed scientifically in the form of taxes; market economics would then lead, in principle, toward optimal trade-offs. Would this make us dependent on the good spirits of politicians? Sure! This is one reason campaign finance reform is a key first step in any major program. But we must hope for a happier future: We want politicians serving the public rather than rich vested interests as they tend to serve now. It’s hard to understand why we should put more faith in the directors of Exxon than in our elected leaders.
Carbon tax — Since making carbon-based energy consumers afford the environmental cost of CO2 is key to free market solutions, let us review two huge fallacies that often arise in discussion of such taxes.
There is no need for a tax on X to be associated with spending related to X. When Disney makes profits on its Pirates of the Caribbean franchise there is no need for them to reinvest all of those profits back into Pirates: they might determine that spending to rejuvenate the Muppets franchise makes more sense. When P&G makes profits on its razor blades, it’s not restricted to spending that money on razor blades; it might be time for a big shampoo campaign.
The U.S. doesn’t keep track of the occupations of taxpayers, spending funds from military families at the Pentagon, and teachers’ taxes on schools. So why in tarnation does anyone think that the revenue from energy taxes needs to be spent on energy programs? :smack: The government acquires money based on various criteria (the carbon tax’s purpose is to let the free market play the key role in energy decisions). The government should spend its money according to … [wait for it} … where that money would best be spent! If the body politick decides that public spending on healthcare should increase, why not spend carbon revenue there? Would it make sense to instead tax health? Tax disease?
"Revenue neutral tax." I’m not sure what this even means. Does it mean that if we’re running a $1 trillion deficit right now, that after a new budget which includes a major carbon tax, other taxes and spending should be adjusted so that we still have a deficit of $1 trillion? If so, Why? Isn’t the “best” deficit a wholly different question? Maybe a $2 trillion deficit would be better. Maybe the deficit should be reduced. These are decisions which should be independent of — unrelated to — the carbon tax.
There is one sense in which “revenue neutral” almost makes sense. The present U.S. tax system is rather regressive. Carbon tax tends to be very regressive. We will want to offset the regressive nature of the carbon tax with progressive changes elsewhere in the tax system. I’ve proposed major reductions in payroll taxes (at least on the first $20,000 of income) to compensate lower-income workers for the huge burden of the carbon tax. (That the carbon tax revenue might be diverted to the SocSec Trust Fund as part of this change is a detail of little importance in this overview.)
Uh, I did not call a liar, only that you do depend a lot on reports that are flawed, you are however also having trouble with timelines, one of the reports I quoted explained **how those that you quote are depending on the same source. ** and explained why that was flawed, then the other report I quoted came from a different source falling, it seems for the same overestimation method. And it was explained away in a different way, in essence I do have reasons to doubt that 1600 number still and China is working to do better.
So stop claiming that I’m not contributing, what you cited was really good to show how the mainstream media can also get it wrong. As it was shown many times in the past regarding this issue. And then the right wing sources spin it to even more despairing news. And so, the point stands, there is a lot that has to be also checked before we can get wise about workable green policies.
Modern reactors can actually help the nuclear waste problem. Canada’s CANDU reactors, for instance, can use the waste from U.S. light water reactors, and the waste the CANDU puts out in return is much more short-lived and only dangerous for about 400 years instead of many thousands of years. Canada’s nuclear commission had a recommendation years ago to put a string of CANDU reactors near Yucca mountain. The reactors would be fueled from the waste going into Yucca, and the waste they put out (much less) could then be stored in Yucca were it would be dangerous for a mucn shorter period of time. They were then going to use the reactors to convert water from lake Meade into hydrogen, which could then be used in fuel cells to power transportation. That got killed because of NIMYism in Nevada, I believe.
I have been advocating for congestion pricing in cities for years. Every time a car enters a crowded freeway it imposes an externality on everyone else in the form of longer travel times. When roads are free to drive at any time, busy roads attract storefronts and services, which makes the roads even busier. The only limiting factor becomes extreme congestion, which results in very inefficient traffic flows.
With modern GPS and in-car computers, congestion pricing could be automatic, private, and simple. Just get in the car and tell the nav system you want to go to wherever. The nav system hits a service which reports the current price of each road, and then it can say, “The shortest route will cost $2.00. If you are willing to go a mile out of your way, there will be no charge.” The congestion can be calculated by having cars anonymously report where they are at all times. The pricing is dynamic through the day.
Think of the effects that would have. Businesses would not necessarily congregate to busy roads, because people might not want to pay congestion fees to get to them. Under-utilized roads would be more useful. The cost of road travel might help end sprawl. But in any event, giving the public the information about congestion and incentive to avoid it would improve the efficiency of the road system greatly. It would also stop the inflation of pricing along busy interchanges, which makes business less efficient. There are a lot of bad effects that come out of treating the road system like a commons with free access everywhere all the time, and because they are the result of a market failure, this is an example where adding pricing through a tax could make the entire economy in a city more efficient.
Politically driven science is a terrible way to assess the costs of externalities. These are complex systems, and the costs are often opaque and entangled with other costs. Scientists looking at an industry from a distance have very poor tools for really understanding what’s going on inside it.
Carbon taxes are supposed to be a ‘Pigouvian Tax’. Such a tax corrects for market externalities by taxing the entity creating the externality and using the money to compensate the people being harmed by it. This uncovers the true cost of production, which makes the market more efficient in theory.
If you’re going to use a carbon tax to just tax people who emit carbon, and use the money to spend on whatever you want, the tax is now just a bloody tax. Furthermore, the promise of a revenue neutral tax is that it will leave the same amount of money in the private economy as before - just distributed more efficiently by correcting the externality. In theory, this allows you to have higher carbon taxes, because the money still stays in the economy. Your ‘nudge’ can be bigger. But if you take that money out of the private economy and give it to government to spend, you are shrinking the private sector and that’s going to put a hard limit on how big the taxes can be before you really start to harm the economy.
As a political matter, the only way you are ever going to get conservatives on board with carbon taxes is if you can convince them that this isn’t just another big-government money grab. And so far, that’s what carbon taxes appear to have been where they have been implemented. Politicians just can’t keep their hands off that giant pile of money.
Let me explain how you deal with cases where you have a source that disagrees with another one. You say, “Hmm, 1600 comes from this data, but other data disagrees.” Then we can have a discussion about which numbers to use. What you DON’T do is say, “Oh, 1600, huh? I have a source that contradicts you , so your number is wrong and you probably did it on purpose because you spin everything. So I’m taking my ball and going home, after leaving a big dump in your thread.”
As you suggest, the delay in U.S. nuclear power investment might be a blessing since modern reactors have important advantages. Now is the time to move forward!
I also may support traffic congestion fees in principle but consider that topic low priority.
However:
This is all wrong. Very wrong.
First of all, you are conflating Pigouvian taxes with Pigouvian subsidies. I’ve nothing against the latter, but what is your “cite” that Pigouvian taxes need to be balanced one-for-one with Pigouvian subsidies? It defies common sense. (Do you think that if society deems pot smoking as better than tobacco smoking that all the revenue from tobacco taxes should be spent on marijuana subsidies? :rolleyes: ) Please forget what you think you know, and address my comments on their own merits.
The second paragraph is even sillier. I am glad you mentioned “bloody tax” because it highlights your visceral contempt for taxes, the source of your unclear thinking here.
And as I stated very clearly in the post you’re responding to, turn the $1 trillion deficit into a $2 trillion deficit if that’s better policy. The whole question of what the fiscal deficit “should” be is separate from what the carbon tax should be. You’ll point yourself toward better conclusions if you remember that independent things are independent.
“Politicians just can’t keep their hands off that giant pile of money.”
You started OP with “Leave partisanship at the door.” I guess that rule applies to those who deign to discuss with you, but not to you yourself.
So it was the report replying to that very same article from the NYT and it explained how the NYT got it wrong. Again it does not help your case when the cites you used later cited the same source from 2017
Unfortunately I also quoted how a number very similar to that that was reported in the UK press, and as usual with the intention to be controversial or despairing. And I linked to a different reply that also matches the reasons what Greenpeace and others reported about how the original source got it wrong.
I think you are confused as to what a Pigouvian subsidy is. A Pigouvian subsidy is not a subsidy paid to people hurt by an externality - it’s a subsidy paid to people who create positive externalities that can not be recouped as profit. In other words, it’s the opposite of a Pigouvian tax.
And it’s true that Pigou never said that you had to directly compensate the people harmed by the externality, but that’s the way I’ve seen the tax talked about for a long time. The classic example is of a polluter upstream from someone. The polluter saves money by imposing the cost of pollution on the downstream person. You can just tax the polluter, but that won’t stop the person downstream from being harmed - they’ll just be harmed a litle less. You could make the tax high enough to stop the pollution entirely, but that might be inefficient because the person downstream might only have been damaged by a smaller amount, and would have been happy to let the pollution continue with compensation. So instead you tax the polluter just enough to compensate the people for the pollution. You’ve essentially created a market mechanism for capturing and distributing externality costs.
A Pigouvian subsidy might look like this: A firm upriver makes a product that requires extremely clean water. So the firm takes in river water, cleans it, uses it in production, then releases cleaner water than would otherwise have existed. Now the person downstream is getting a benefit from the company, and the company has no way to profit from it. So, to make the market more efficient you can tax the person downriver for part of their gain, and use the tax to subsidize the company. That’s a Pigouvian subsidy. Of course, you don’t need to tax anyone specifically for that - you can just subsidize the beneficial activity. But since governments don’t make their own income, at some point someone is getting taxed. Better to tax the person who’s getting the benefit than to tax the general population to subsidize something that only one person gets.
The beneficial aspect of the Pigouvian subsidy is that the existence of the subsidy might attract even more water-cleaning activity than would exist if those companies had no way of being paid for the water they clean.
If tobacco smoking creates an externality, and pot smoking is a reasonable substitute without the externality, then a fan of Pigouvian taxes and subsidies woud definitely say that it makes sense to tax tobacco and use the money to promote pot smoking.
How is that any different than taxing carbon and giving the money as subsidies for electric cars or renewable power?
My thinking is clear as a bell, thanks. I was trying to get across how opponents of the tax will look at it. And I live in one of the few jurisdictions that has a carbon tax, and I can tell you that support for it plummeted when people found out it wouldn’t be revenue neutral. People are suspicious that carbon taxes are just a politically correct way to justify ‘just another bloody tax’. If you want support for them, you need to work hard to convince your political opponents that the tax will be used in a way that won’t just grow the size of government and shrink the private sector.
If you want to tackle the deficit, do it with a deficit reduction tax, or raise income taxes, or institute a sales tax, or cut government spending. Using a carbon tax to do it will strike most people as a bait-and-switch. Besides, the idea that the carbon tax will be applied to the debt is a fantasy. Governments spend as much as they have, then they borrow as much as they can get away with. How much revenue they actualloy have doesn’t seem to matter much. Government revenues recently hit an all-time high, and yet there’s a massive deficit. It’s a pretty hard slog to convince people that if the government gets just a little more revenue, this time they’ll spend it wisely.
If I had said “Democrats can’t keep their hands off that giant pile of money”, I’d be making a partisan statement. Discussing the general responses of governments around the world when they get windfall money is public choice economics, not partisanship.
BTW Sam Stone I it seems that you forgot about what I do, after all these years it is cleat that when I see a data point that needs to be explained about how is not quite as it seems, is that then I’m not leaving.
In this case I do think it is important to point out that the data is not as despairing as some reported.
The only way I see to reduce CO2 levels is to help developing countries develop faster so they get rich enough to care about the environment sooner than they otherwise would. That would fall under development economics about which I know little.
If the bulk of global warning is going to be caused by developing countries and developing countries will go for the cheapest energy even if it worsens global warming, then we’re going to get global warming.
What are the worst consequences of global warming? Perhaps policies should focus on ameliorating its consequences rather than its causes. Maybe it’s improper for me to mention this as it doesn’t fit in the thread’s requirements and may be a notch too far into brainstorming.
Well, I can give you why we should and could go after China. Why we would is, they are the largest producer of CO2, and they have a hell of a lot of coal fired plants…and are building new ones. In addition, as I pointed out up thread, they are building them in other countries on a large and increasing scale.
Plus, contrary to your assertion that they are either the least ‘bullyable nation’ or the second least (or even in the top 10), I’d say they are particularly vulnerable at this stage. If I were to rate nations on their lack of bullyability (made that word up btw), I’d go with the Nordic nations as remarkably un-phased by bullying tactics. Just compare and contrast how the EU reacted to Trump’s lame attempt at a trade war with the EU, and what the US ended up doing in response, to what China has had to do…as well as how long it’s gone on, with no real end in sight. The US CAN put pressure on China, especially on this. Hell, we could do it just by exposing how badly the reality of their supposed green leadership has been. But even without that, we have leverage we can use against them, depending on what our goals are. Currently, they seem a bit vague because our fearless leader is an idiot and doesn’t really know what to do or what he’s doing, but we could use that leverage to either pressure the Chinese to start abiding by their WTO commitments or, if we wanted too leave those aside, to actually do more wrt not building new coal plants either in or out of China. After all, China doesn’t HAVE too…they are a quite well developed country at this point, despite people (and themselves, depending on the day of the week) insisting they are still ‘developing’, and they could build alternatives that have less of an impact than new coal plants. And they could export greener technology as well. I mean, since they are going to debt trap countries into large scale build projects to put them at the mercy of the CCP, they might as well be green projects at least.
Again, Sam, I strongly recommend that you forget what you think you know and address matters — and specifically my comments — on their own merits, and with a fresh mind. For example, your uncited claim about “the way I’ve seen the [Pigovian] tax talked about for a long time.” Are you speaking of government micromanaging lists of polluters’ victims? That doesn’t sound like you. I’m not going to enumerate all the flaws in this approach. But here’s one point that may help:
The idea that Pigovian taxes must be balanced one-for-one with Pigovian subsidies is very wrong. In the specific case of energy, we don’t just want people to shift from coal to nuclear, we want them to shift from coal to conservation. Perhaps you’re a statist type who thinks the government needs to incentivize conservation. I, OTOH, think the free market may achieve this without “Pigovian subsidies” if energy is priced properly.
We know that you like the idea of government subsidies and dislike government taxes. I’m agnostic on the matter. If you had some grand plan that, instead of taxing carbon, would subsidize everything else, I mightn’t dismiss the plan out of hand! (Though I suspect even you would find the details insoluble.)
Subsidizing electric cars? Maybe it’s a good idea. What do you think about it?
Your comment that income tax may be used for deficit reduction, but carbon tax revenue must be returned as Pigovian subsidies (I assume this is what revenue-neutral means) makes us wonder if you understand that money is fungible. With the ideological blinders you wear I’m afraid that No, your thinking cannot be “clear as a bell.”
The claim that “government will always spend as much as it has” flies in the face of reality. By some measures the federal budget was in surplus under Bill Clinton and some other Presidents. When programs like Medicare suffering from systemic problems are ignored, federal spending has fallen in recent years.
So I can write “Some people cannot be educated about economics because of their deluded and irrational hatred of government” and I’m OK, non-partisan as long as I don’t associate the delusions with a particular political Party?
Cynicism about politician’s ability to not spend what comes in (and more) is hardly partisan and your attempt at criticism here is unfair and does not advance the conversation.
That wasn’t my assertion, it was puddleglum’s, which I was stipulating:
I’m happy to suggest that we should throw our weight around to convince China to knock it off with emitting greenhouse gases (again, once we clean up our own act). But even if that’s not possible, as puddleglum asserts, that doesn’t mean an effort to be the world’s leader in this regard would be fruitless.
The partisan divide in the U.S.A. these days is often less about left vs right, but about true facts vs alternate facts. Present company excepted, of course.
An argument was advanced that receipts from taxes on coal should be used to subsidize natural gas. :smack: This, despite that natural gas is also a source of CO2 emissions, and is doing fine economically without subsidies. The reason given for making “carbon tax revenue neutral” — already a peculiar formulation which ignores that money is fungible — was “Politicians just can’t keep their hands off that giant pile of money.” Since this assumption was central to that proposal, it seems appropriate to debate it.
Here is a pictorial which may help focus attention on the true facts of federal spending. Observe an increase in defense spending in the 1980’s that was contemporaneous with a *decrease *in tax rates. Observe an increase in healthcare spending during the Bush-43 years that was contemporaneous with a decrease in tax rates. Observe a decrease in spending on defense and income security during the Clinton years that was contemporaneous with an increase in tax rates. The spending maximum in 2009 followed multiple episodes of tax cuts.
No; the idea that tax hikes lead to spending hikes is not supported by this evidence.
Since you’ve now loaded that graphic into another tab, let’s look at it in a little more detail. The dark blue band at the very top — which has diminished over the decades — includes nuclear management programs, environmental protection, NASA, and many many other government services. Yet one can plainly see that if all these services were reduced to Zero, barely a dent would be made in federal government spending. Social Security is more-or-less self-financing. Healthcare cost reforms are desirable regardless of federal involvement, but sending Granny to the death camp is not a popular solution.
Don’t call me a “fiscal liberal.” Unlike those who proudly call themselves “fiscal conservatives,” I would seek to reduce the spending-to-tax ratio in times of prosperity.
No; the notion that a carbon tax should be “revenue neutral” is a confused and illogical conclusion derived from a canard. It was right for me to challenge it.
And just to be crystal clear: One type of “spending” I would advocate with the revenue from Pigovian taxes, rather than returning these funds in the form of yet more tax cuts, would be Deficit Reduction.
What a topsy-turvy Newspeak turn modern American political diction has taken when deficit reduction is added to the litany list of “unwanted liberal spending.” :smack:
)
You started OP with “Leave partisanship at the door.” I guess that rule applies to those who deign to discuss with you, but not to you yourself.
I’m not going to enumerate all the flaws in this approach. But here’s one point that may help: