EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

[Una_Persson]

@Rhythmdvl

If I’m not mistaken, you have some connection to the energy industry. Are you familiar with the sulphur dioxide emissions reduction scheme? It was one of (if not the) first emissions trading programmes put in practice, and is widely acknowledged to have achieved emissions reductions at a fraction of the cost of a direct mandate (though, like global warming, there are random papers out there that dispute tradings’ economic benefit.

Oh, I’ve had a couple of decades of daily professional exposure to it…but you must acknowledge of course there is a difference between SO2 and NOx allowances and CO2, for two reasons:

1. It’s not practical to tax coal sulfur on an input basis, since from 5% to more than 15% of the sulfur is captured in the pyrites system, fly ash, and bottom ash, and this varies a bit depending upon the type of coal and the combustion technology. Meaning that a brute-force sulfur tax on the input side has a significant error built in.

2. It’s not practical to tax NOx on an input basis, since the fuel-bound nitrogen of the coal, while strongly influencing the ultimate NOx, does not decide it - combustion technology and operations can swing NOx by +/- 50% with the same coal.

However, CO2 is much more closely a case where what goes in, comes out (barring LOI/UBC/CO losses, which are quite small and under 1%).

I don’t object to cap-and-trade, and in the case of SO2 and NOx (as well as mercury, should a cap-and-trade system be finalized for that) I think it’s a great plan, but I think that a carbon tax would have a more direct effect on changing the self-destructive consumer habits which ultimately drive the entire pollution equation.

It worked for sulphur dioxide. There are billions of dollars of CO2 emissions trades taking place right now, supporting the contention that the cost savings are greater than the overhead.

It did, but as I explain above, it’s not apples to apples. And yes the EU market is (sort of) working right now, but it has a long way to go.

Reliance on taxation largely forgoes these benefits. It forgoes the advantages of capitalism and free enterprise. While there can still be an amount of technology trading taking place, the end costs will be much higher.

I guess what I don’t understand is why the free market can deal with taxation and restriction on the front end (allowance markets) but not on the back end (carbon taxes). How for instance do you envision cap and trade reducing gasoline and/or diesel fuel consumption? Are you applying a carbon tax per gallon of gasoline which leaves the refinery (the EU doesn’t…)? Or are you only concerned with the carbon emissions of the refinery itself? While the refinery might be able to change its emissions profile somewhat, that pales in comparison to the billions of gallons of gasoline and diesel which leave the refinery. In short, asking honestly and not snarking, how do you envision cap and trade helping immediately and substantively to kill off the crazed “drive everywhere in my giant guzzling SUV” culture which we live with? Or even better, the “let’s fly across the country for a 1-hour business meeting and then fly right back, wasting untold amounts of fuel in the process because it’s cheap?”

[elucidator]

Most likely, there is not one solution but thousands, each relatively small and incremental. In all probability, we cannot change the situation without changing ourselves, we are the problem, we are the solution. Consumer capitalism is, by its very nature, a ravenous glutton for resources, so long as we remain addicted to its excesses, we will make no progress worth the name. We don’t really need seventeen varieties of cat food and a wide array of choices in loud, shiny crap.

The only other solution is the deus ex machina, the wondrous genius who discovers the secret of green, clean, cheap energy. From our lips to the Ears.

[Deeg]

@Una_Persson

how do you envision cap and trade helping immediately and substantively to kill off the crazed “drive everywhere in my giant guzzling SUV” culture which we live with?

For me, this is the reason I support a straight-out tax over cap-and-trade. Normally I’m a big free-market booster but tail-pipe emissions is one of the few areas where the market needs some help. I’d like a big boost in fuel taxes coupled with a lowering of income taxes.

[smiling_bandit]

Well, they did it anyway.

This is likely to come to a bad end after costing millions of man hours in endlessly insane form-filing which will likely accomplish nothing (except, ironically, to cut down more trees for paper…). A tax would probably have been much better, (and also better than cap’n’trade, which would have been better than this) although I don’t believe the government would use the money wisely. And it’s not like there aren’t solutions, but most of them have been blocked by the government. Heh.

Look also for a significant challenge in the courts, which may well take a dim view of the EPA legally regulating a chemical which is not only naturally occuring everywhere on the earth but in which every human is complicit in creating 24/7/365. Abuse and fraud is not only probable but likely neccessary, given that it may well not be possible to accurately determine total “carbon” use and that the EPA may have a hard time determining atmospheric vs. ground carbon and so forth.

Of course, this all assumes the EPA is actually going to use the finding to any specific aciton. I suspect they will wind up using it as a vague threat against people they do0n’t like. This is likely to be less damaging but highly politicized, and open to massive abuse. I don’t think the EPA practically can monitor the carbon use by all industries, and those industries can’t determine their own. Ironically, of course, the problem is actually decreasing over time and could be vastly further improved if the EPA would butt out in some areas. C’est la vie.

[buttonjockey308]

@Una_Persson

I admit I’m either not smart enough or studied enough to tell you an exact level. But it’s absolutely true that carbon taxes do and will push people towards:

1. Using less of the GHG-emitting resource by avoidance and efficiency improvements.
2. Substituting other activities or substances for the taxed item.

Yeah, worked for smoking. Or not. What so-called carbon taxes also do is create an unfair global advantage for companies whose countries either aren’t a part of an agreement, or don’t enforce the one they’re a part of. Not saying there shouldn’t be a way to do something, but under the current concept, a ‘tax’ on activity A and doesn’t mandate a way to reduce the activity, it simply emboldens those who are willing to pay the fee. Further, if you start a new revenue stream into the government, you can bet that stream will eventually flow into the general fund instead of dealing directly with the issue you’re trying to address

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Obviously there is a minimum level of energy that most people do need, but a large part of it is simple waste. I’ve posted details before of studies I’ve personally been involved with which claim we could reduce our electrical use by 20% nationwide and see little change in our standard of living, and that a 40% reduction is possible with a “manageable” reduction in standard of living. I freely admit that one person’s “manageable” is another person’s “no fucking way”, so obviously the definitions are fluid.

And don’t even get me started on the incredibly wasteful mentality of “flee the scary black people to go to the suburbs, then drive 20 miles each day in a 15 mpg SUV because I have a Labrador and they need big cars.” Like, oh, all of my co-workers?
[/QUOTE]

Woof. Keep talking out of both sides of your mouth like that and your lunch will end up on your shirt.

I moved downtown into a one bedroom high-rise condo (from a 3 bd 2 ba SFH), almost 20 miles away from my main job HQ and I drive an '05 Ford Explorer. My ‘carbon footprint’ is smaller now than it was a year ago despite my drive.

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
I think it’s safe to opine that if we had to we could reduce significantly in other areas as well. There is still a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. I posted a while back calculations which showed the energy use from cable converter boxes alone across the entire US took an entire coal power plant to run. I mean, holy crap.
[/QUOTE]

Considering that most energy efficient modern TV’s don’t require a ‘cable box’ to work, I think that there is a lot of room in that argument, but lets just say that with 58% of American homes subscribing to cable, that having one coal-fired power plant operate some 65 million ‘cable boxes’ ain’t that bad a statistic.

[Quote=Una Persson]
I’m a conservative who believes in America. I believe America can rise to the challenge of tackling the GHG emissions problem, and kick its ass too, so long as we have a fair playing field and everyone else in the world is on our team. This may require an entire change in the “boo hoo, I’m a victim” and “let’s sue someone instead of working”-mentality SOP of thinking which has infected our Society since the 1960’s, but so be it. We can reduce our energy use, we can improve efficiency, we can reverse AG climate change, if only we will get our act in gear, make the hard and unpleasant decisions, and just do it.
[/QUOTE]

While I agree with this part, I can’t believe cap and trade or carbon taxes will be the way. We’ll never get a level playing field if we charge ourselves more to do business in our own country. This, I submit, is the over-riding problem. We are incapable of thinking with one singular purpose. The one bad thing about the so-called free market is that it’s every man for himself which tends to leave the country stranded and is the reason precisely that China is able to kick our collective asses.

[buttonjockey308]

@Deeg

For me, this is the reason I support a straight-out tax over cap-and-trade. Normally I’m a big free-market booster but tail-pipe emissions is one of the few areas where the market needs some help. I’d like a big boost in fuel taxes coupled with a lowering of income taxes.

Peter meet Paul. Paul meet Peter. Now reach for the sky.

Big boosts in fuel taxes means higher costs for absolutely everything else. You won’t see enough of a break in taxes, especially for those in the lower brackets, to offset the impact of the higher fuel costs on retail goods.

[Squink]

@smiling_bandit

Well, they did it anyway.

Yeah!
Score One For Reality

[Una_Persson]

@buttonjockey308

Woof. Keep talking out of both sides of your mouth like that and your lunch will end up on your shirt.

I see. :dubious:

[Chronos]

And it’s not like there aren’t solutions, but most of them have been blocked by the government. Heh.

You mean, blocked by 41% of the government?

[smiling_bandit]

@Chronos

You mean, blocked by 41% of the government?

:rolleyes:

For someone that partisan and vocal (and vocally partisan) on the subject, you seem awfully ignorant about energy issues and potential solutions, despite them having been discussed frequently on this very board.

[Squink]

@Una_Persson

I see. :dubious:

You failed the purity test.
Apparently that makes you a socialist, like the rest of us.

[sleeping]

Um, why is this question even being entertained? The OP has made a ludicrous assertion and provided no evidence for it.

[kmgraves]

If they charged a *cent carbon tax on gasoline, how would that be fair to someone who bought a new automobile with a state-of-the-art emissions system as compared to someone else with a '78 V8 Ford with straight pipes?

[Una_Persson]

@kmgraves

If they charged a *cent carbon tax on gasoline, how would that be fair to someone who bought a new automobile with a state-of-the-art emissions system as compared to someone else with a '78 V8 Ford with straight pipes?

Because they would pay less tax if the new car got better gas mileage?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Chronos]
The people waging a war on capitalism are the ones who oppose letting the free market have any say in carbon emissions. Obama’s trying to use the free market to solve this problem, but the very people who claim to support capitalism are hamstringing him.
[/QUOTE]

We had a discussion of the relative merits of a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade just last week, if you’d like to weigh in on that one.

Yes…but I found Blake’s arguments MUCH more compelling. I point this out because I find it ironic that you posted the first statement (as if it’s fact) then linked to a thread where, IMHO anyway, you and the others on your side got your asses handed to you. Just sayin…

(I realize after Blake left the echo chamber started up, and I concede that you and the others probable figured you could just declare victory there)
Not much to say as far as the OP goes. I’m sort of on the fence as to this stuff. To me, the whole cap and trade thing seems like it has the potential for massive gaming of the system, but I think this train has left the station, so I guess we’ll just have to see what happens.

I will say that IF this costs us the money I THINK it will, and IF there is the level of gaming of the system (if not out and out abuse), then there had better be a BIG pay off to all this…or the Dems will be envying what the Pubs are currently going through over Iraq and the other Pub fuckups over the last 8+ years. Again, just sayin…

-XT

[kmgraves]

You missed the point Una or maybe I didn’t make my statement clear. One of these automobiles will put out much more carbon per gallon than the other yet the tax would be the same for both.

[Squink]

@kmgraves

One of these automobiles will put out much more carbon per gallon than the other

A gallon of gas contains a set number of atoms of carbon. Based on 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (C8H18), a gallon of gas will mass 2.60 kg, and contain 2.19 kg of carbon.
Any car burning a gallon of gas will put out 2.19 kg of carbon. One car might put out a little more CO than CO[sub]2[/sub], or ethanol and other partial combustion products, but in the end burning a gallon of gas always produces 2.19 kg of total carbon.

[Rhythmdvl]

I don’t think this is the point kmgraves is going for (if it is, I’m sorry to step on your toes), but the imbalance in vehicular efficiency suggests the inequities inherent in a tax scheme.

This isn’t to say that taxes are inherently inequitable – a balanced approach/mix of market and tax measures is needed – but a quick decision to go all on one or the other side results in many unwanted outcomes.

In this instance, the person who can’t afford a more economical car (e.g., for wont of capital outlay) ends up paying more tax than the more affluent person. This has the secondary outcome of the group least able to pay for the tax carrying a (albeit slightly in this particular example) larger burden.

These are old problems with finding the right mix of tax policies, whether on carbon, sin, or just for raising revenue. It clearly doesn’t invalidate using taxes to address consumption and behavioral patterns, but it does highlight one of the challenges.

[Squink]

@Rhythmdvl

I don’t think this is the point kmgraves is going for (if it is, I’m sorry to step on your toes), but the imbalance in vehicular efficiency suggests the inequities inherent in a tax scheme.

If that’s the case, he needs to talk about miles per gallon rather than carbon per gallon.

Carbon per gallon is a constant. Contrary to kmgraves claim, that means that taxing gas directly tracks carbon emissions pretty darn well, no matter what sort of vehicle you’re driving.

[RTFirefly]

@Chronos

You mean, blocked by 41% of the government?

Just to further reinforce your point, I think you mean “blocked by 41% of one half of one of the three branches of the government.”