Hey, I can find Republicans that want to raise taxes. Your point is what?!?

I actually have been a vocal and strong supporter of a carbon tax on this board.

I got a chance to sit down and speak with an individual involved in the crafting of the McCainWarner-Lieberman cap-and-trade legislation, and he made some pretty persuasive arguments.

First, the C&T approach sets a maximum limit which is decreased each year over a period of time. There is no such guarantee of reductions in the Tax approach.

Additionally, it the C&T approach deals with the elasticity of demand for carbon-based fuels by setting up a mechanism whereby the effective cost of these fuels is set by this hard maximum cap. A carbon tax will not do that, and if the demand for fuel is inelastic, people will just use as much, simply paying more.

However, I am still concerned about the artificiality of the carbon market and the complexities of setting up the trading, as well as the explicit politicization of the distribution of the credits.

And, of course, conservation is already much less expensive than oil

How about this energy policy--bring back the Integral Fast Reactor and invest a shiatload in converting the electricy-generating infrastructure to fast-neutron nuclear. If you want to pay for this with a carbon tax, fine. You want to offer incentives to energy companies, fine. Either way, you can cut (not just stabilize) carbon emission by nearly half, and start providing the surplus of cheap electricity that is necessary to convert transportation energy to electric, hydrogen, fuel cells, or whatever.

At least they HAVE an energy policy.

TFA (The Farking Article):

Besides proposing useless or damaging ideas, the candidates have also passed up the single best idea for energy policy: a carbon tax that would curb use of fuels that release greenhouse gases, while encouraging development of clean alternatives. Better yet would be a carbon tax whose revenues go to cut payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, rewarding work without raising the deficit.

OFW (Obama's Farking Website):

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

It's like when a cartoon character runs headlong into a brick wall of fail.

pandabear: How about this energy policy--bring back the Integral Fast Reactor and invest a shiatload in converting the electricy-generating infrastructure to fast-neutron nuclear. If you want to pay for this with a carbon tax, fine. You want to offer incentives to energy companies, fine. Either way, you can cut (not just stabilize) carbon emission by nearly half, and start providing the surplus of cheap electricity that is necessary to convert transportation energy to electric, hydrogen, fuel cells, or whatever.

The $/avoided carbon emissions for a reactor is by far the worst of any possible carbon reduction strategy we have available.

Conservation is by far the best bet, and there are huge opportunities in this field. And it is a win-win proposition since it is so inexpensive compared to oil.

Jubeebee: It's like when a cartoon character runs headlong into a brick wall of fail.

Cap and trade =/= carbon tax.

Besides proposing useless or damaging ideas, the candidates have also passed up the single best idea for energy policy: a carbon tax that would curb use of fuels that release greenhouse gases, while encouraging development of clean alternatives. Better yet would be a carbon tax whose revenues go to cut payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, rewarding work without raising the deficit.

It's a win-win concept with wide support among economists, but almost none among politicians.

You can thank the Market Fundamentalists and Randroids for mercilessly catapulting the propaganda that any tax is an attack on freedom and (bizarrely) anti-capitalist for this.

"Tax" (when not in reference to Defense spending) is a four letter word in America, and it isn't exactly a mystery as to how that came about.

So instead we will likely have to use the cap and trade approach, which all three candidates endorse, Obama's (^PDF) being the best of the group (McCain is all over the map in regards to CAFE standards and what % of credits are auctionable, Clinton is woefully deficient on public transportation and the international picture).

But hey, I am all for seeing libertarians push aggressively for a carbon tax. I just won't be holding my breath...

Skleenar: Jubeebee: It's like when a cartoon character runs headlong into a brick wall of fail.

Cap and trade =/= carbon tax.

The implementation differs, but the effect would be the same.

Both create incentives for companies to limit emissions and invest in cleaner equipment. One directs money to the government, the other keeps money in the private market.

The implementation differs, but the effect would be the same.

Both create incentives for companies to limit emissions and invest in cleaner equipment. One directs money to the government, the other keeps money in the private market.


In addition they have the same problems too. Identify the Pareto level of emissions - and then cap accordingly, or identify the Pareto level of emissions, and then set tax accordingly.

Skleenar: The $/avoided carbon emissions for a reactor is by far the worst of any possible carbon reduction strategy we have available.

How so? Power plants need to be replaced, and new capacity needs to be built. Fuel is an ongoing (and rising) cost for the life of a fossil power plant, and if you add a tax to that.... A fast-neutron reactor, OTOH, has scarcely any fuel cost once it is constructed and initially fueled, and the construction cost is not enormously greater than a fossil plant--and certainly less than the cost of a fossil plant and all the fuel it will use over its useful life.

pandabear: How so? Power plants need to be replaced, and new capacity needs to be built. Fuel is an ongoing (and rising) cost for the life of a fossil power plant, and if you add a tax to that.... A fast-neutron reactor, OTOH, has scarcely any fuel cost once it is constructed and initially fueled, and the construction cost is not enormously greater than a fossil plant--and certainly less than the cost of a fossil plant and all the fuel it will use over its useful life.

There is a longer discussion of this issue in the link I posted above (you can download the entire book as a pdf for free).

But essentially the issue is that the paradigm of central-plant power stations itself is a highly inefficient proposition. Add to that the added costs of nuclear safeguards and it becomes terribly expensive in terms of $/ton of carbon.

I prefer the fully auctionable flavor of cap-and-trade, but a carbon tax is an end towards the same means.

Cleaning up your own mess should always be a fundamental principle for Libertarians. If you put your trash out at the atmospheric curb, don't be surprised when you get a bill for the removal service.

Skleenar: Jubeebee: It's like when a cartoon character runs headlong into a brick wall of fail.

Cap and trade =/= carbon tax.

Cap and Trade is nearly identical to a carbon tax, but it lets the market determine the cost to polluters... and the government's role becomes of of regulator instead of assessor and collector.

chimp_ninja: I prefer the fully auctionable flavor of cap-and-trade, but a carbon tax is an end towards the same means.

Cleaning up your own mess should always be a fundamental principle for Libertarians. If you put your trash out at the atmospheric curb, don't be surprised when you get a bill for the removal service.

I'm quite fine with that principle, actually. It's how I rectify my tree-hugging streak with my die-hard capitalist principles. Maybe it was all those years in the Boy Scouts and being taught to leave things you found them.

Nabb1: It's how I rectify my tree-hugging streak with my die-hard capitalist principles. Maybe it was all those years in the Boy Scouts and being taught to leave things you found them.

Environmental protectionism is very libertarian; pollution is a pretty direct assault on my person and property.

Nabb1: I'm quite fine with that principle, actually. It's how I rectify my tree-hugging streak with my die-hard capitalist principles. Maybe it was all those years in the Boy Scouts and being taught to leave things you found them.

An easy litmus test to distinguish a Conservative from a GOP sycophant is their view of the environment. Good on you.

Skleenar: There is a longer discussion of this issue in the link I posted above (you can download the entire book as a pdf for free).

But essentially the issue is that the paradigm of central-plant power stations itself is a highly inefficient proposition. Add to that the added costs of nuclear safeguards and it becomes terribly expensive in terms of $/ton of carbon.

I haven't read the book yet (although it's bookmarked for later) but can you briefly explain why a centralized fossil-fuel-based energy grid is less efficient in terms of emissions than a decentralized one?

Large power plants can more efficiently scrub their emissions than small generators. That's why a power plant is cleaner per unit of work than a car engine, because they have the space and capital to limit more emissions.

Decentralized power grids make sense for solar, wind, and to a lesser extent hydro generation, but for nuclear and fossil fuels, isn't a centralized system more efficient?

Jubeebee: I haven't read the book yet (although it's bookmarked for later) but can you briefly explain why a centralized fossil-fuel-based energy grid is less efficient in terms of emissions than a decentralized one?

I can answer that one. We lose about 7% of our energy produced to resistive losses in the power transmission lines. By cutting out the need for power transmission we can increase the over all efficiency (and thusly reduce the emissions) of our energy consumption.

Code_Archeologist: I can answer that one. We lose about 7% of our energy produced to resistive losses in the power transmission lines. By cutting out the need for power transmission we can increase the over all efficiency (and thusly reduce the emissions) of our energy consumption.

My impression is that your 7% figure is actually low. If you have a source, I'd be happy to read more about that.

Still, you have to balance that against scalability. Solar/PV? Scalable. Fission? Thankfully not. And most combustion technologies gain efficiency as you move to larger scales.

Code_Archeologist: Cap and Trade is nearly identical to a carbon tax, but it lets the market determine the cost to polluters... and the government's role becomes of of regulator instead of assessor and collector.

Sure.

You tell me which is the better role for the government.

People seem to take potshots at both roles.

I used to pretty strongly believe that the regulator role was the least favorable in this situation--especially when you consider the difficulties of carbon accounting.

However, I am much less strongly in favor of a carbon tax today.

Civil and informative thread thus far.

I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning them off. Won't that just let the really big polluting companies keep polluting?

I'd be more for a tax than cap and trade. Cap and trade is a lot harder to actually do right. The European's are doing cap and trade now (called ETS), and it's failed pretty miserably because they gave out credits for free. So all of the plants are passing on the cost of the credits to the consumer, but they paid exactly $0 for them. The companies have made billions.

I think most would be for auctioning off credits for cap and trade, which would be better. But the tax is about as transparent as it gets, and you could use that tax revenue to invest in some useful stuff.

Skleenar: There is a longer discussion of this issue in the link I posted above (you can download the entire book as a pdf for free).

But essentially the issue is that the paradigm of central-plant power stations itself is a highly inefficient proposition. Add to that the added costs of nuclear safeguards and it becomes terribly expensive in terms of $/ton of carbon.

Then explain how France successfully generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear at reasonable cost. They are looking to increase that percentage and invest in fast-neutron reactor technology.

IIRC, the Russian BN-800 fast-neutron reactor should be operational by 2010 and the BN-600 fast-neutron reactor has been operating safely since 1980.

Conservation is not going to save us. It will certainly help, but we need to increase our energy generation and nuclear is an extremely attractive option. As an added bonus, they can cheaply desalinate water in the dry parts of the country, like southern CA.

mediaho: Civil and informative thread thus far.

Give it time.

GAT_00: I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning them off. Won't that just let the really big polluting companies keep polluting?

Thats part of the system in cap and trade, yes. The polluting companies would have to buy lots of credits to meet their emissions goal, making them less profitable. In the meantime, the people who aren't polluting much are selling their credits to the polluters, making lots of extra money and making them very profitable. So eventually it reaches a point where the polluters can't afford to stay in business, while the low-polluting technologies that are generally more expensive can be competitive in the market.

The only viable long-term solution:



It's the cars, stupid. Jebus, do Americans ever have a gigantic blind spot on this issue.

Quel: GAT_00: I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning them off. Won't that just let the really big polluting companies keep polluting?

Thats part of the system in cap and trade, yes. The polluting companies would have to buy lots of credits to meet their emissions goal, making them less profitable. In the meantime, the people who aren't polluting much are selling their credits to the polluters, making lots of extra money and making them very profitable. So eventually it reaches a point where the polluters can't afford to stay in business, while the low-polluting technologies that are generally more expensive can be competitive in the market.

It would also mean the moderate sized businesses would have trouble buying enough credits to match their pollution, or at least buying enough at reasonable prices. They would be losing so much through credits that they would have trouble switching to cleaner technologies. Auctioning has its problems, I think.

Skleenar: But essentially the issue is that the paradigm of central-plant power stations itself is a highly inefficient proposition. Add to that the added costs of nuclear safeguards and it becomes terribly expensive in terms of $/ton of carbon.

You also have to take into consideration land footprint. Land is something very limited in the world and will become more and more limited.

I would assume a nuclear reactor can put out a lot more engery:land footprint than any solar/wind system we have right now.

Jubeebee: I haven't read the book yet (although it's bookmarked for later) but can you briefly explain why a centralized fossil-fuel-based energy grid is less efficient in terms of emissions than a decentralized one?

The grid losses are huge.

Something like less than 10% of the energy burned ever makes it to you as a useful energy (see below this illustrated for an industrial process).



It is this problem that causes most central-plant schemes to reduce carbon emissions much less effective than simpler methods or conservation:



It also shows the huge leverage of conservation, in that saving one KW at the end user saves about 9 overall.

canyoneer: It's the cars, stupid. Jebus, do Americans ever have a gigantic blind spot on this issue.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but American cities sprawl in a way that no other cities in the world do. Public transportation doesn't work well because the grid must be coarse and affordable, or large and expensive as hell. This cannot be easily corrected by simply saying "More buses!" and "More trains!" Entire cities would have to be redesigned, costing trillions.

What the hell was the point of this article? They look at a tiny and mostly irrelevant portion of each candidate's energy policy and then condemn the entire thing. I'm pretty sure all three candidates have expressed support for a cap and trade system, and I know at least Obama and Clinton have proposed significant investments in alternative energy projects. What a f*cking waste of space article.

Since when do we base policy on what works and produces verifiable results? Damn sure not for the last 7 years.

Libertarians aren't all completely anti-tax subby.

Most of us consider some taxation a necessary evil, particularly taxes like this that are considered voluntary (nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy gasoline).

It's the income tax that we have a serious problem with, because the government really is holding a gun to your head and shaking you down, or else.

Any sort of carbon tax is an awful idea because then the poor will be priced out of electricity.

Crosshair: Then explain how France successfully generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear at reasonable cost. They are looking to increase that percentage and invest in fast-neutron reactor technology.

I am not at all saying that Nuclear doesn't work or that it is impractical.

I am merely saying that when measured against avoided carbon emissions, it is one of the most expensive options per ton avoided.

RanDomino: Any sort of carbon tax is an awful idea because then the poor will be priced out of electricity.

Bootstraps.

GAT_00: "Entire cities would have to be redesigned, costing trillions."

Yep. We've blown 35 years avoiding it, too. Pretty stupid, eh?

We have no choice. As mass transportation for the bulk of the population, the automobile is obsolete. This is the reality that Americans refuse to acknowledge. The longer we remain in denial, the worse off we'll be. Striving to retain auto transportation is a classic case of the psychology of prior investment.

It's the cars, stupid. Jebus, do Americans ever have a gigantic blind spot on this issue.

we're too spread out for trains, they are huge tax subsidy suckers, and putting in more track to handle what you no doubt envison would require an extension of eminent domain to take the right of way that would create a massive revolt.

Paedophile_Deluxe
Bootstraps.

can't afford boots

Skleenar: Jubeebee: I haven't read the book yet (although it's bookmarked for later) but can you briefly explain why a centralized fossil-fuel-based energy grid is less efficient in terms of emissions than a decentralized one?

The grid losses are huge.

Something like less than 10% of the energy burned ever makes it to you as a useful energy (see below this illustrated for an industrial process).



It is this problem that causes most central-plant schemes to reduce carbon emissions much less effective than simpler methods or conservation:



It also shows the huge leverage of conservation, in that saving one KW at the end user saves about 9 overall.

Very helpful. Thank you, sir.

/off to the wiki

albo
we're too spread out for trains,

Most driving is municipal. If you live and work in a city, you should not have/drive a car.

they are huge tax subsidy suckers

GIVE ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE

and putting in more track to handle what you no doubt envison would require an extension of eminent domain to take the right of way that would create a massive revolt.

you are a crazy idiot.

canyoneer: We have no choice. As mass transportation for the bulk of the population, the automobile is obsolete. This is the reality that Americans refuse to acknowledge. The longer we remain in denial, the worse off we'll be. Striving to retain auto transportation is a classic case of the psychology of prior investment.

One of the reasons americans are able to have houses and land and enjoy their lives is because we're able, if we choose, to live 30 miles, 40 miles from where we work. There is no efficient mass-transit system to make this work.

Previously, I lived in South Jersey, east of Philly and worked about 10miles west of Philly in another small town. What transit system gets me to my job? There's probably 20 people in the region who need to travel that exact route.

As a student of chemical engineering, I welcome this industry that will soon be exploding, allowing me to make gobs of guilt-free hippie money.

/It's all made from hemp

canyoneer: GAT_00: "Entire cities would have to be redesigned, costing trillions."

Yep. We've blown 35 years avoiding it, too. Pretty stupid, eh?

We have no choice. As mass transportation for the bulk of the population, the automobile is obsolete. This is the reality that Americans refuse to acknowledge. The longer we remain in denial, the worse off we'll be. Striving to retain auto transportation is a classic case of the psychology of prior investment.

Fine. Where will the money come from to redesign, at the very least, every city that has a population of over 500 million? By the 2000 census, that's 29 cities. How do you propose to fix the fact that so many people live in the suburbs? Your mass transportation system will have to have a diameter of roughly 100 miles in most cities.

Just saying it needs to be done, and it does, doesn't mean it can be done.

you are a crazy idiot.

nice refutation. you get your MA in debate and logic?

it's either buy the right of way for new track or take it by force of eminent domain. our track system can't handle the freight and passengers now. your solution?

Remember, Libertarians do not believe in the Flag.

canyoneer: It's the cars, stupid. Jebus, do Americans ever have a gigantic blind spot on this issue.

Only about 8% or so of the energy burned in the engine of a traditional gasoline-burning car actually goes to moving the driver.

Besides the inefficiencies of the engine itself and the idling losses, most of the remaining energy goes to moving the car itself. This energy use can be greatly reduced (and the parasitic inefficiencies of the engine, of course) with a drastic reduction in engine weight.

Currently we have advanced composite materials stronger and safer than steel that can greatly reduce the cost of fabricating a passenger car--(for a current application, look at the economic success of the Boeing 7e7, and Boeing's reverse engineering of their composite technology to the rest of their fleet).

Reducing the weight of our vehicles can drastically reduce petroleum use, as well as make more realistic advanced drivetrains like electric or fuel cell which are currently uneconomic because the power storage requirements are too high for modern car designs.

GAT_00: canyoneer: It's the cars, stupid. Jebus, do Americans ever have a gigantic blind spot on this issue.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but American cities sprawl in a way that no other cities in the world do. Public transportation doesn't work well because the grid must be coarse and affordable, or large and expensive as hell. This cannot be easily corrected by simply saying "More buses!" and "More trains!" Entire cities would have to be redesigned, costing trillions.

The American sprawl should start shrinking in a few years for demographic reasons. The baby boomers will start retiring soon. The will dump there suburban houses and SUVs and look for higher density living options.