# Carbon Pricing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2011, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188 "2011-07-07T14:50:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/21 "2011-07-08T17:12:13Z")
> [@bahia\_hombre](#): > > There is that, but China and India will be subject to a lot of the same environmental issues of their cities near coasts being subject to rising sea levels, etc. as well as their economic trading partners struggling to deal with crop disruptions, droughts, floods, etc. so I think they can see that the past is past and they will have to be part of future solutions. I disagree. Economies like China and India are not going to see nearly the relative cost disruption as the west from AGCC. Moreover, I do not believe at all that India and China, let alone most of SE Asia, will join in any effort for carbon emissions. My daily update of proposed coal power plant projects in various stages of planning has about **1,800 coal power plants** of various sizes on the list. If I sort by China, India, and SE Asia I see that about 1,500 of those proposed projects lie in those countries. If all plants were built, the net CO2 increase would outstrip essentially all efforts by the US and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions. When I speak to folks considering seriously these projects (I was on a conference call with some bankers in SE Asia early this week, in fact, for an 8 GW coal project, yes that’s 8,000 MW at one site) they almost laughed out loud when the subject of carbon taxes was brought up. Although Africa doesn’t not have nearly the coal plants planned (or power projects, period) of the rest of the world, I’ve been working on a couple of proposals deep in the center of Africa. Their response to carbon emissions was “a third of our people in this part of our country don’t even have electricity in their homes. They don’t have running water. They don’t care about carbon, and neither should we.” All that having been said I still support a cap and trade carbon allowance scheme like has been very successfully done with SO2 and NOx. It just needs to start out slow and ramp up over time, like the 1990 CAA scheme did. Get _something_ in place so the structure is there and the kinks and bugs get worked out, even if that means you start with a $5 per ton tax. It will be much easier to start low and move high, then to start high. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/22 "2011-07-08T19:34:52Z")
**crewface** , what in the world are you talking about? You’re the only person in this thread (or, so far as I can tell, anywhere) who’s talking about using nanobots to address the carbon problem. That won’t happen, because we’re nowhere near being able to make nanobots now, and by the time we are able, we’ll either have already solved the problem by other means, or we’ll already be suffering the catastrophic consequences. Unless, of course, you’re counting living cells as “nanobots”, but in that case, the business about “reprogramming” them makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/23 "2011-07-17T19:31:47Z")
This announcement last week has been shaking up my industry. I had inside information that this was coming, but I wasn’t allowed ethically to post about it. [AEP calls it quits for the largest carbon capture plant in actual operation in the US; to end testing and not proceed to phase 2.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/us-utilities-aep-carbon-idUSTRE76D34C20110714) The folks I know are considering this, for the near-term, to be the death knell for carbon capture in the US for a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/24 "2011-07-17T22:26:25Z")
Fuck mitigation. Just fuck it. Between the horrific intentional ignorance and well-financed lies is a political quagmire of inaction. Fuck mitigation. Not worth it. Pragmatically, no efforts can ever be sufficient; all that can be achieved is sub-par attempts at limitation far below reductions necessary to temper, let alone halt, CC. This will impose a severe cost for no gain (avoided harm). It’s fucking bullshit. I’m shifting my policy work to adaptation. I’m glad I’m about to leave on vacation. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/25 "2011-07-18T17:05:53Z")
It’s not an either-or question of mitigation or adaptation. Even if we can’t completely mitigate the effects, the more we mitigate, the less adaptation will be needed. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/26 "2011-07-18T18:56:14Z")
> [@randomface](#): > > Implementing a tiny one would be very problematic. Even just reporting GHG emissions will cost a lot. I’m not necessarily complaining, I’m an environmental consultant. > [@randomface](#): > > The EPA GHG reporting is pretty limited in who has to report and what they have to report. A Carbon Tax or Fee or whatever would not be, at least if it hopes to get anything done. I’m on the front lines of the EPA’s GHG reporting requirement. This is the first year of reporting, so it’s been a bumpy ride. For some straight forward sectors (e.g. natural gas combustion in a boiler), it’s a simple and straight forward program. For other more complicated sectors (e.g. landfills), it’s a hot mess. The EPA’s reporting requirements are pretty expansive and will capture the majority of emissions. The big sources will be captured directly by the reporting requirement. Small sources (e.g. gasoline in automobiles) will be captured indirectly by the reporting done by refineries. Smaller sources (i.e. backup generators, most “mom and pop” sources) are below reporting thresholds, so the expense of reporting is primarily born by large facilities where reasonable costs can be absorbed reasonably. It’s not free, but a company with 3 billion in revenue can absorb a million per year in GHG compliance without collapsing. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/27 "2011-07-18T19:29:11Z")
Carbon offsets work in a different way from a straight carbon tax. I’m not versed in the economics of the different impacts, but I want to discuss offsets and their validity or lack thereof. Not all offsets are created equal. There are several current offset programs in the US (Climate Action Reserve, Clean Development Mechanism), and a couple of defunct ones (CCAR, CCX). They have different rules about what constitutes a reduction, how it is calculated, and what is eligible. For example, CAR has a very specific definition of each program and never includes offsets for generated electricity. CDM is much more open ended and allows an electrical generation credit. Ideally, the market will reflect the differences in the programs and how likely an offset is “real.” This is more or less the reason CCX collapsed. Too many leaks and flaws in the CCX system were discovered and the market value of the carbon credits collapsed to a final price of $0.10 per metric ton, down from $7.50 per metric ton. I’m not sure the system will work in perpetuity, but the success of CAR over CCX indicates that it’s working at rudimentary level for now. I’m convinced that credits in some programs are real and permanent. I have no issue with the developer selling those credits in a compliance program to offset emissions from somebody who wasn’t capable of reducing their emissions for some reason. I’m equally sure that credits in some programs are worthless. I’m also convinced that voluntary “offset your flight”-type programs are worthless because there’s almost no way for a buyer to know where those credits are coming from. They could be from a nearby landfill that is now destroying methane when no regulatory or economic factor would otherwise require that destruction, or it could be a credit that doesn’t have any program, verification, or validation behind it. I’m in the industry and I have yet to see a credit available to the public that I can trace back to a program I have trust in. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/28 "2011-07-19T01:32:21Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > This announcement last week has been shaking up my industry. I had inside information that this was coming, but I wasn’t allowed ethically to post about it. > > [AEP calls it quits for the largest carbon capture plant in actual operation in the US; to end testing and not proceed to phase 2.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/us-utilities-aep-carbon-idUSTRE76D34C20110714) > > The folks I know are considering this, for the near-term, to be the death knell for carbon capture in the US for a few years. Did anyone who looked at the numbers ever think CCS was going to work? One study I saw showed to the cost per KWH was higher than Nuclear Power without even considering the sequestration costs, which frankly didn’t even appear to be feasible unless the plant was sitting on an appropriate geological formation. I was shocked when I looked at the EIA stats and discovered that most coal power plants in the US don’t even have scrubbers on them. Most of the improvements in SO2 emmissions are from plants switching to low sulfur western coal which is cheaper anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/29 "2011-07-19T02:09:43Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Did anyone who looked at the numbers ever think CCS was going to work? Yes, a lot of folks did, before gas became dirt cheap. > [@](#): > > One study I saw showed to the cost per KWH was higher than Nuclear Power without even considering the sequestration costs, which frankly didn’t even appear to be feasible unless the plant was sitting on an appropriate geological formation. I read hundreds of studies, and the results were incredibly variable, but largely leaning towards “impractical.” > [@](#): > > I was shocked when I looked at the EIA stats and discovered that most coal power plants in the US don’t even have scrubbers on them. Most of the improvements in SO2 emmissions are from plants switching to low sulfur western coal which is cheaper anyway. But that’s changing rapidly, as scrubber construction is never-ending right now. Western coal isn’t necessarily low-sulfur nor cheaper, but I won’t go all pedantic on you here, you’re mostly correct. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/30 "2011-07-19T05:39:48Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Western coal isn’t necessarily low-sulfur nor cheaper, but I won’t go all pedantic on you here, you’re mostly correct. You are correct. I really meant the Powder River basin, rather than Western coal in general. ---
**Author:** ![bluezooky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@bluezooky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluezooky)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/31 "2011-07-19T09:10:40Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You apparently don’t understand the difference between carbon trading and a carbon tax. Carbon trading is a scam to let politicians reward favored groups with credits and speculators with unearned profits. Carbon Trading doesn’t reward people for reducing emissions. It rewards them for gaming the system. Politicians love carbon trading because it provides them with a huge new source of graft. A no-exceptions carbon tax is the fairest way to actually reduce emissions. > > BTW did Australia plan to tax exported coal? Frankly if they don’t , then all they are doing is exporting the pollution to China. We already have that problem in California where a lot of their regulations just push the pollution over the state line. Australia will not be taxing exported coal however the mines will be taxed for the methane they outgas, with Australia exported coal actually cleaner than China’s own which they have plenty of, its obviously an incredibly complex issue. The latest story has the Australian government donating money to the UN who have given carbon credits to an Indian coal powered electricity supplier who in turn has sold them back to an Australian coal power generator to reduce his carbon footprint ??? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/32 "2011-07-19T21:45:09Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You are correct. I really meant the Powder River basin, rather than Western coal in general. Actually I was thinking of transport costs as well - by the time you get past the Mississippi, transport costs can be 10x or larger than the FOB mine cost. I’ve seen 25x larger costs, in fact, just last week for PRB coal to Florida. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/33 "2011-07-20T00:43:12Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Actually I was thinking of transport costs as well - by the time you get past the Mississippi, transport costs can be 10x or larger than the FOB mine cost. I’ve seen 25x larger costs, in fact, just last week for PRB coal to Florida. :eek: I live in Florida and I didn’t realize any PRB coal came to Florida. Most of the coal I’m aware of comes from Columbia. I remember finding one Virginia power plant using Colombian coal instead of West Virginia coal. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/34 "2011-07-20T03:57:12Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I live in Florida and I didn’t realize any PRB coal came to Florida. Most of the coal I’m aware of comes from Columbia. I remember finding one Virginia power plant using Colombian coal instead of West Virginia coal. Most coal in Florida is CAPP or NAPP, although you should expect to see Illinois Basin before long. Stanton was to get PRB for its IGCC, and Stanton proper was likely to use it too, but when the IGCC was cancelled that nixed that plan. I do not think any PRB currently actually makes it to Florida, due to the cost and logistics. Florida is going to be moving to a complicated energy situation but I can’t really speak in public about that. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/35 "2011-07-21T02:49:34Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Most coal in Florida is CAPP or NAPP, although you should expect to see Illinois Basin before long. Stanton was to get PRB for its IGCC, and Stanton proper was likely to use it too, but when the IGCC was cancelled that nixed that plan. I do not think any PRB currently actually makes it to Florida, due to the cost and logistics. I guess I got that impression because the Crystal River Power Plant uses coal from Columbia. When I read your statement, I did some more checking. Crystal River is the only Florida Power Plant that using Columbian coal. [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean\_energy/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-Florida.pdf](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-Florida.pdf)’’ I studied Crystal River, because I trying to figure out why Progress Energy wanted to build a new nuclear power plant in Levy County instead of adding another nuclear power plant at Crystal River. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/36 "2011-07-21T02:58:07Z")
Roger Pielke Jr. has some rather harsh words about PM Gillard’s public statements about the carbon tax. If his report is accurate, then she appears to be saying that emissions from coal will drop while coal production is increasing. I don’t think she is talking about CSS. > [@](#): > > The federal government has committed $1.3 billion to protect coal jobs, while Treasury modelling says the industry’s output will more than double between 2010 and 2050 under the carbon tax. > > But it also says the proportion of Australia’s energy supply derived from coal will fall from 80 per cent now to 20 per cent within 40 years. . . [http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/when-politicians-put-experts-between.html](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/when-politicians-put-experts-between.html) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/37 "2011-07-22T17:10:46Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I guess I got that impression because the Crystal River Power Plant uses coal from Columbia. When I read your statement, I did some more checking. Crystal River is the only Florida Power Plant that using Columbian coal. > > [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean\_energy/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-Florida.pdf](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-Florida.pdf)’’ > > I studied Crystal River, because I trying to figure out why Progress Energy wanted to build a new nuclear power plant in Levy County instead of adding another nuclear power plant at Crystal River. That article gives a sort of misleading picture of Crystal River - Crystal burns many coals, and Colombian is just one of them (I was actually on the phone with Crystal last week, interesting coincidence). I’m uncertain of the percentage of Colombian they burn right now, and my assistant who looks these things up for me in his database is out today, but I thought it was no more than 25-50% max, with the rest being Appalachian coal. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188/38 "2011-07-22T18:46:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The federal government has committed $1.3 billion to protect coal jobs, while Treasury modelling says the industry’s output will more than double between 2010 and 2050 under the carbon tax. > > But it also says the proportion of Australia’s energy supply derived from coal will fall from 80 per cent now to 20 per cent within 40 years. . . That looks to me like it’s saying that coal will grow, but other energy sources will grow even more. Not a paradox, but the numbers look pretty extreme to me, since it implies the other sources increasing by a factor of 32, and total energy usage increasing by a factor of 8. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carbon-pricing/588188.md?page=1)