Uncategorized

Rebutting some common criticisms of the carbon tax

Charles Komanoff's excellent work on carbon taxes vs. emission trading tends to attract certain frequent objections. This is an attempt to answer some of them:

Cap and trade is the way we do things now. Politically, we can never win a carbon tax.

Answer: Cap and trade has political heft mainly because it was instituted at a low level over a long period of time -- thus it did not require very high emission reductions. Further, because the emission cap was confined to a few nations, but emission credits can be bought from nations without such caps, the emission reduction as a percent of total emissions in countries taking part in the Kyoto negotiations is even lower than the nominal target.

In addition, emission reductions are measured against a 1990 baseline, which has been increased by 3% due to various revisions (subscription). And while there is room for argument over just how many, there is no question that a fair percentage of Kyoto credits are fraudulent -- excessive credits were granted to EU utilities, and many of the CDM credits sold in China are bogus.

Put a tight enough cap on the number of credits, with stricter controls to prevent fraud, and you will find political resistance is as great as resistance to a carbon tax.

Stars align for climate mega-concerts, and more

Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: It’s Official: He Rocks It Takes a Vilsack to Raise Our Hopes Biz, Biz, Oh What a Relief It Is […]

You be the judge

The American Association for the Advancement of Science joins the ranks of the alarmists, calling global warming "a growing threat to society" that should be countered with "rapidly reducing greenhouse […]

Bush’s USDA plays footsie with ADM, Cargill, and even the API on farm policy.

Federal investment in agriculture is a very wise, thoughtful investment. How we do it is the critical issue. At the end, I believe strongly it must be predictable, equitable, and […]

One great way to increase environmental awareness? That’s entertainment.

Whenever a Hollywood star steps behind a podium in support of a cause, you can almost hear the sound of millions of Americans rolling their eyes. What right, goes the thinking, do actors/pop stars/celebutantes have to tell us, the workaday citizens of the real world, what we should and should not believe about the political issue du jour?

And global warming

I’m seeing lots of links to this ScienceDaily story on Anthony Leiserowitz, a prof at the Univ. of Oregon who studies public risk perception. I mentioned his work here, and […]

David Feld, director of GeesePeace, answers questions

David Feld. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I am the national program director of GeesePeace. What does your organization do? GeesePeace is an educational nonprofit organization that helps […]

The wages of vanity

Roger Pielke Jr. has written a classic of the vanity-blogging genre, a long post about his Wikipedia biography that concludes with the question, “should I care about the Wikipedia biography?” […]

Political platform has some weak links

For those of you who have not seen it yet, Terry Tamminen has a piece on Grist's soapbox where he shares his ideas for a presidential platform. I have no problems with items 1 through 3. Item 4 needs work:

Replace these vehicles with ones that run on the cleanest fuels available, which today are biofuels, natural gas, and hydrogen.

First, one must contend with the negative environmental issues associated with biofuels before implementing them, not to mention that government isn't smart enough to know which ones should be implemented or how. These biofuels you speak of, Terry, they have big environmental problems of their own. You of all people should be aware of them.

It don’t make no sense

The following analysis was sent to me by someone who shall remain unnamed, lest he or she lose his or her job. The take-home message: As an energy source, geothermal […]