HOORAY FOR OBAMA!

[Alondro]

The one environmental issue NOT being talked about enough is mercury contamination of pretty much everything.  Mercury has proven to be very very bad for neurological development in concentrations of a few parts per million.

Then there are the hormone mimetics from certain plastics which oddly enough seem to have the most effects at low concentrations; excessive hormone levels in rivers from contrceptives (only a tiny fraction of what's in the pills is absorbed and metabolized, the rest is excreted and hormones are remarkably stable molecules) which cause fish and frogs to become deformed (and it is not known what effects constant levels of artificial hormones may have on mammalian fetal development).

But everyone's focused on poor CO2.  I'd like to point out that life did really well back in the dinosaur days, when CO2 levels were quite a bit higher.  Evolution spikes during warm periods.  Cold periods are actually far worse for biodiversity, as many life forms don't do well in the cold. 

At least CO2 isn't going to mutate, poison, or brain-damage us.  Oh, I didn't even mention the chemicals now found to cause epigenetic alterations, which means that heritable gene expression patterns occur even without genomic sequence changes!  Allergies and perhaps even autism may result from simply putting a few different little signal molecules on certain important regulatory sequences of genes.  Especially in the brain and immune system, which are incredibly fine-tuned systems, regulation of gene expression is critical.  It takes very little to screw it up.

[Brunhidden]

[Darkmoon]

The one environmental issue NOT being talked about enough is mercury contamination of pretty much everything.  Mercury has proven to be very very bad for neurological development in concentrations of a few parts per million.

Then there are the hormone mimetics from certain plastics which oddly enough seem to have the most effects at low concentrations; excessive hormone levels in rivers from contrceptives (only a tiny fraction of what's in the pills is absorbed and metabolized, the rest is excreted and hormones are remarkably stable molecules) which cause fish and frogs to become deformed (and it is not known what effects constant levels of artificial hormones may have on mammalian fetal development).

But everyone's focused on poor CO2.  I'd like to point out that life did really well back in the dinosaur days, when CO2 levels were quite a bit higher.  Evolution spikes during warm periods.  Cold periods are actually far worse for biodiversity, as many life forms don't do well in the cold. 

At least CO2 isn't going to mutate, poison, or brain-damage us.  Oh, I didn't even mention the chemicals now found to cause epigenetic alterations, which means that heritable gene expression patterns occur even without genomic sequence changes!  Allergies and perhaps even autism may result from simply putting a few different little signal molecules on certain important regulatory sequences of genes.  Especially in the brain and immune system, which are incredibly fine-tuned systems, regulation of gene expression is critical.  It takes very little to screw it up.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management discusses it.

[Damaris]

One thing to consider with green energy is that it might not be a boon to the economy if it is used in our country alone.  However, if the US is the first to pioneer much of the technology that is required to make it feasible across the board, then that is technology that can be sold to other countries, either through plans or through the equipment itself.  And that *would* be a boon to the economy.

[superluser]

The thing is... big businesses don't like to innovate so long as they can get away with doing what they've been doing. That's especially true for energy companies. They're very conservative when it comes to adopting new technologies. It's a cultural thing. They have large capital investments in existing toys with enough resources and bureaucracy to provide lots of inertia. And let's not underestimate their political clout. Dump a bunch of new rules on them (like emission standards), and they'll bitch and whine. Heck, they might even sue if litigation costs less than compliance. On the other hand, business managers like to win. Give them a new playing field (like an emissions market), and they'll find surprising new ways to beat their competition.

It's for reasons like this that I'm warming to the auto bailout plans.  Specifically, if the Big Three automakers want to get a bailout, they should have to take measures to ensure that they will have 5% of their new car sales able to run on something other than gas within two years.  And then require something like 10% within four years.

[Valynth]

The thing is... big businesses don't like to innovate so long as they can get away with doing what they've been doing. That's especially true for energy companies. They're very conservative when it comes to adopting new technologies. It's a cultural thing. They have large capital investments in existing toys with enough resources and bureaucracy to provide lots of inertia. And let's not underestimate their political clout. Dump a bunch of new rules on them (like emission standards), and they'll bitch and whine. Heck, they might even sue if litigation costs less than compliance. On the other hand, business managers like to win. Give them a new playing field (like an emissions market), and they'll find surprising new ways to beat their competition.

It's for reasons like this that I'm warming to the auto bailout plans.  Specifically, if the Big Three automakers want to get a bailout, they should have to take measures to ensure that they will have 5% of their new car sales able to run on something other than gas within two years.  And then require something like 10% within four years.

Didn't the coal powered cars fail already?

Honestly, one of the reasons the other cars aren't being built is because people are finding out that there's a lurking cost to not running on gasoline that most people don't think about.  With electric cars, it's the massive custom-built batteries that don't store much juice anyway.  Another problem with electric is:  How do you regulate the fuel?  When you can just plug into any available port, you can steal electricity from just about anywhere with an external electrical socket.  Sure you don't have to pay for it, but the place you plug into DOES.  The only answer then is to go through a HUGE amount of redesign for many buildings to guard electrical sockets like they were made of diamond-encrusted platinum.  Hell, you could probably do it with an unfrequented internal electrical socket with an extension cord.

Hybrids are reasonable, but they're too new to be readily affordable and the new technology hasn't caught up with the average mechanic shop.  And wait...  THEY STILL USE GASOLINE!  Albeit not as much (I heard of one girl getting 50-70MPG).  I really think this is our best option for "green" cars, but the costs aren't going to be practical until we have several generations of them to scrap/salvage for cheaper repair/maintenance costs.

Hydrogen cars are not practical due to their fuel.  The amount of energy that is needed to get enough hydrogen to fuel a car is the most out of all the cars available.  And the fact is, this isn't going to change.  Getting pure hydrogen is a pain in the ass simply because of the way it acts, which is made worse in an oxygen-ladden atmosphere.  And, as others have said, the tank for a hydrogen car is a bomb or could EASILY be fashioned into one to the point of being accidental.  (Hindenburg anyone?)

[superluser]

Didn't the coal powered cars fail already?

Coal as a fuel for cars did indeed fail, but interestingly, the technology that made coal feasible to run in cars still exists.  It's called diesel, and modern diesels may be able to run on coal dust (I'm not sure).

Honestly, one of the reasons the other cars aren't being built is because people are finding out that there's a lurking cost to not running on gasoline that most people don't think about.  With electric cars, it's the massive custom-built batteries that don't store much juice anyway.

That's actually the whole point of this.  If you force Ford, GM and Chrysler to make these cars just as popular as their other cars, you are also forcing the industry to solve these other externalities and start building an infrastructure that will supply the fuel that we will need to get off of oil.

Another problem with electric is:  How do you regulate the fuel?  When you can just plug into any available port, you can steal electricity from just about anywhere with an external electrical socket.  Sure you don't have to pay for it, but the place you plug into DOES.  The only answer then is to go through a HUGE amount of redesign for many buildings to guard electrical sockets like they were made of diamond-encrusted platinum.  Hell, you could probably do it with an unfrequented internal electrical socket with an extension cord.

What you're describing is a problem today, as well.  I've had gas siphoned out of my tank, and there's (in theory) nothing stopping people from stealing electricity with very long extension cords for any purpose, not just electric cars.  Remember the time that Master Shake stole Carl's electricity to run the Shake Signal?

On the other hand, it would be pretty simple to make a specially-designed plug for recharging your electric car.  Simply do something like require the voltage in question to be something like 170 volts and the current to be something like 150 amps.  If either condition is not met, the system does not recharge.  You can't convert wall power to that (you'd trip a breaker), but it would be very easy to get that from the transformer outside of your house, and trivial to have your local electric company set up a new outlet to do that.  That one outlet could easily be locked with a key that you'd put on your keychain right next to the one that keeps your car from being stolen.

[Tezkat]

I'm perhaps not being clear. No matter how it's phrased, forcing business into using green energy cannot be a boon to the economy. At the very least, things would stay the same - anything more would be a detrimental effect to the economy.

So you claim. Prove it. Historical evidence doesn't necessarily support your assertion.

Denmark, for instance, introduced a carbon tax in 1991, followed by a EU-wide a cap and trade system for carbon emissions in 2005. In those 17 years, Denmark's GDP per capita doubled--almost the same growth as the USA. They also significantly reduced unemployment. Did some industries suffer? Sure. But others flourished. Denmark now leads the world in wind power technologies, for instance. Remember those wind turbines they're putting up in Maine? Made in Denmark.

America is having to import the technologies it needs to regain energy independence because it lacked the political will to develop the stuff on its own.

Of course, you say that there's a billions being saved by a reduction in pollution emmissions - I would ask, saved by who? If the government spends less, I still pay the same amount in taxes. If businesses are spending more, those costs are passed along to me. The way I understand it, reducing pollution is an environmentally laudable goal, but from an economic standpoint it is not beneficial.

Hmm... if the government is spending less but not reducing your taxes, I'd hope that they're at least reallocating those funds to something you care about.


With respect to regulations on SO2 and NOx emissions as part of the Clean Air Act (specifically the Acid Rain Program enacted in 1990), we now have nearly two decades of data on the success of the program, and much of the impact is locally measurable.

The largest chunk of the billions saved represented quantifiable benefits associated with reducing respiratory ailments. It turns out that stuff like smog and ozone are bad for you. Indeed, they can kill you. So the significant improvement in air quality saved lives. The estimated 18000 premature deaths avoided in the US and southern Canada represent workers, consumers, and taxpayers who continue to contribute to the economy. Increased mortality risks aside, these medical problems cost money--billions of dollars in hospital visits, medication, and lost worker productivity. Even outside diagnosable illnesses, the productivity of workers performing strenuous outdoor labour improved--on the order of $1 billion annually.

Then we have the benefits of reducing acid rain, which generally take the form of increased revenues rather than costs avoided. Acidified soil and water is bad for... um... life. Improved yields in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries put billions of dollars into the economy. Recreation and tourism got a boost, too. People would rather spend leisure time in places that haven't been destroyed by pollution. Fancy that.

There's also a savings in acid damage to buildings, equipment, and infrastructure. Estimates just for monuments and historic sites (many if which are built from acid-sensitive limestone and marble) run into the $100 million range nationally. The total property savings is probably an order of magnitude higher, but it's hard to quantify.

In summary, national compliance with this program costs industry (or rather, their consumers) $3 billion annually. That's $10 per person to save about 18000 lives and avoid over $100 billion in health care costs, lost productivity/revenues, and property damage. Furthermore, improving the environment translated into billions of dollars in economic growth.

Would you consider this program of evil environmental regulations beneficial from an economic standpoint?

I generally do not pay attention to environmentalist issues, because in general I've found it alarmist, and made up of a group of very frightened, ecologically minded people making ridiculous demands, lest the sky fall on all our heads. Hence, peak oil, peak gas, peak uranium, grid parity, are not terms I'm entirely familiar with.

Um... that's the lingo of the energy industry, not environmentalists. It's not particularly helpful to dismiss important matters of energy policy simply because some of it coincides with environmentalist agendas.


"Peak oil" describes the point at which production of oil declines. Oil production in individual wells tends to follow these neat bell curves; it gradually ramps up as you reach the heart of the field, peaks, and finally declines until you're sucking the bottom of the well. National or global oil production, being an aggregate of thousands of wells, follows a similar pattern. "Peak coal" and such represent attempts to apply the model to other resources.

The cheap, easy to extract stuff is at the top. The deeper you drill, the more energy, equipment, and technology you need to extract each barrel until it's no longer viable to exploit the well. In a country that has yet to reach its peak, like Iraq, extracting a barrel of crude might only cost a dollar. In a country that peaked decades ago, like the USA, extracting that barrel would cost five to ten times as much. Going offshore incurs even more costs. Producing oil from unconventional sources, such as shale, can be wildly expensive. It costs upwards of $40 to synthesize a single barrel of crude from the tar sands in Alberta.

Production statistics suggest that we hit global peak oil in 2005. If that's indeed the case, there will be less and less supply to keep up with the growing demand. High school economics should tell you what to expect in situations like that. Or you could just watch the oil prices.


"Grid parity" essentially means that the wholesale production costs of a new energy source can compete with existing electricity generation. The numbers can be a little funny in some cases because of the taxes and subsidies affecting various technologies at both production and implementation stages. Lots of regional factors matter, as well. Not to mention fuel and raw material prices. The economics of electricity production are... complex.

It's for reasons like this that I'm warming to the auto bailout plans.  Specifically, if the Big Three automakers want to get a bailout, they should have to take measures to ensure that they will have 5% of their new car sales able to run on something other than gas within two years.  And then require something like 10% within four years.

Heh. That looks a lot like the rules that GM and friends (successfully) fought back in the 90's... right before scrapping their electric car programs and handing leadership of the auto industry over to the Japanese. Those idiots spent millions lobbying and litigating for the regulatory and market conditions that led them to fail, and now they're crying for a bailout...

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with using taxpayer-funded industry bailouts to enact energy policy, though. It amuses the ebil overlord in me, but the ebil capitalist screams that there are better ways.

Also, you can't just pull alternative energy vehicles out of your ass and drop them on the market. They take years to develop, and US automakers are already playing catchup after wasting so much R&D on gas guzzlers. The Chevy Volt won't even be out for two years, and I seriously doubt they could produce enough to make up 5% of their line.

[Reese Tora]

I like the idea of electric cars.  I've been sort of paying attention to an electric sports car that's available, the Tesla roadster.  A number of CA metro train stations have electric car charging stations (the one near where I work has three or four charging stations, they're next closest after handicap parking)

The problem, though, is that this is about the only place you'll find these stations.  outside of the Tesla, which gets 250 mi/full charge, most electric vehicles get substantially worse, meaning that they're only useful for short range driving (daily commute if you don't live to far from where you work.)  Even if charging stations were common and range was good, you lose the convenience of gas because there's a charging time.

Electric cars have another drawback that may not be readily apparent: they are full of electricity.  Normally, who cares, that's inside, you're outside or in an insulated cabin, but in an accident, rescuers are at risk for a deadly electric shock if they don't know your car is live and they touch the wrong thing.

For me personally, there's a problem with overnight charging: I part at the curb.  ideally, you would park your car in your garage and charge it there.  on the driveway, it's still doable, but you have the concern of leaving your charging hatch and charging cable exposed overnight.  The problem is worse if you're on the curb, and lends itself to unscrupulous people borrowing your connection to charge their own cars.  I imagine this might be a problem for a lot of other Californians, since most of us seem to think garages are for storing junk, not cars.

Electric cars could be facilitated by repaving all the roads with induction coils hidden under the surface that could be used to pass electricity to the cars while they were in motion... of course, there's a whole giant set of problems that makes that completely unusable, from destroying data stored on magnetic media and stopping pace makers to figuring out how to make each driver pay for the electricity they use.

Oh, and a  side note, I rechecked my source on the Kyoto protocol, it was to set a cap on CO2 emissions equal to each country's levels as of 1980.  Between 1980 and 1985(when the meeting took place) every country that would have been subject to the cap except the US had been economically stagnant (and, in Germany's case, had a head start thanks to closing town a number of old inefficient Soviet factories), and so did not have far to go to meet their goals whereas the US would have had to set itself back years to have a chance to meet them.  I apologize for misremembering the time to which the cap was meant to have been set.

--edit--

or, HEY!, you could use that induction coils idea for overnight charging in cases like mine, just run the coils where the car is usually parked, and use some sort of sensor like what's used to detect the passage of cars to activate street lights and an RFID system to make sure it only runs when tehre's a car to charge... and to make sure only an authorized car gets charged.

[superluser]

Heh. That looks a lot like the rules that GM and friends (successfully) fought back in the 90's... right before scrapping their electric car programs and handing leadership of the auto industry over to the Japanese.

Be fair.  I think they handed over leadership of the auto industry in the 80s.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with using taxpayer-funded industry bailouts to enact energy policy, though. It amuses the ebil overlord in me, but the ebil capitalist screams that there are better ways.

I completely agree.  It's just that in this case, it looks like they *are* going to get the bailout, and I think that we should try to make the best of this bad business rather than fighting it and winding up with nothing to show but a bad bailout.

Also, you can't just pull alternative energy vehicles out of your ass and drop them on the market. They take years to develop, and US automakers are already playing catchup after wasting so much R&D on gas guzzlers. The Chevy Volt won't even be out for two years, and I seriously doubt they could produce enough to make up 5% of their line.

But Chevy already has ethanol-based cars, biodiesel-based cars and hybrid cars (yes, I know hybrids aren't gas-free).  They have the designs, and they can start ramping up production and begin rolling those out in very little time.  I don't know if any of those will wind up being feasible, but like I said, it will force the market to determine what will be feasible.

The problem, though, is that this is about the only place you'll find these stations.  outside of the Tesla, which gets 250 mi/full charge, most electric vehicles get substantially worse, meaning that they're only useful for short range driving (daily commute if you don't live to far from where you work.)  Even if charging stations were common and range was good, you lose the convenience of gas because there's a charging time.

Like I said, that's the point of the bailout conditions.  You force these companies to think about the externalities.  How can you make 10% of all your new cars run on something other than gas unless you work to set up a new infrastructure, as well?  And once you do get that 10%, the infrastructure will want to make itself larger and more efficient.

Electric cars have another drawback that may not be readily apparent: they are full of electricity.  Normally, who cares, that's inside, you're outside or in an insulated cabin, but in an accident, rescuers are at risk for a deadly electric shock if they don't know your car is live and they touch the wrong thing.

Cars already have a lot of electricity running in them.  All you'd need to change in such a situation would be routing the hot wires away from the chassis and adding a GFCI.

[Cogidubnus]

So you claim. Prove it. Historical evidence doesn't necessarily support your assertion.

Denmark, for instance, introduced a carbon tax in 1991, followed by a EU-wide a cap and trade system for carbon emissions in 2005. In those 17 years, Denmark's GDP per capita doubled--almost the same growth as the USA. They also significantly reduced unemployment. Did some industries suffer? Sure. But others flourished. Denmark now leads the world in wind power technologies, for instance. Remember those wind turbines they're putting up in Maine? Made in Denmark.

America is having to import the technologies it needs to regain energy independence because it lacked the political will to develop the stuff on its own.

[quote author=http://londonchronicles.blogspot.com/2008/03/denmarks-carbon-success.html]But a carbon tax isn't a new idea. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries — in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita. ...[/quote]

From what I've read in this article, the Denmark system of doing things was well-designed, and the article also seems to imply that things were already set up infrastructure-wise for them to switch over to cleaner fuels. Denmark is also one country, and its success does not seem to have been shared anywhere else, previously or as of yet. I would also wonder if it's economic success is directly related to it's cap and trade system, or due to other factors.

Hmm... if the government is spending less but not reducing your taxes, I'd hope that they're at least reallocating those funds to something you care about.


With respect to regulations on SO2 and NOx emissions as part of the Clean Air Act (specifically the Acid Rain Program enacted in 1990), we now have nearly two decades of data on the success of the program, and much of the impact is locally measurable.

The largest chunk of the billions saved represented quantifiable benefits associated with reducing respiratory ailments. It turns out that stuff like smog and ozone are bad for you. Indeed, they can kill you. So the significant improvement in air quality saved lives. The estimated 18000 premature deaths avoided in the US and southern Canada represent workers, consumers, and taxpayers who continue to contribute to the economy. Increased mortality risks aside, these medical problems cost money--billions of dollars in hospital visits, medication, and lost worker productivity. Even outside diagnosable illnesses, the productivity of workers performing strenuous outdoor labour improved--on the order of $1 billion annually.

Then we have the benefits of reducing acid rain, which generally take the form of increased revenues rather than costs avoided. Acidified soil and water is bad for... um... life. Improved yields in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries put billions of dollars into the economy. Recreation and tourism got a boost, too. People would rather spend leisure time in places that haven't been destroyed by pollution. Fancy that.

There's also a savings in acid damage to buildings, equipment, and infrastructure. Estimates just for monuments and historic sites (many if which are built from acid-sensitive limestone and marble) run into the $100 million range nationally. The total property savings is probably an order of magnitude higher, but it's hard to quantify.

In summary, national compliance with this program costs industry (or rather, their consumers) $3 billion annually. That's $10 per person to save about 18000 lives and avoid over $100 billion in health care costs, lost productivity/revenues, and property damage. Furthermore, improving the environment translated into billions of dollars in economic growth.

Would you consider this program of evil environmental regulations beneficial from an economic standpoint?

Firstly, regarding taxation - whether the government spends the money on things I care about or not is irrelevant in this case. I merely wish to point out that the cost to me is still the same.

Secondly, I've never said environmental regulation is evil. These are real problems that need to be dealt with - the point that I have been trying to make is that a better way than forcing things is to make renewable energy attractive enough that business switch by themselves. If it's a viable business plan, people will do it - as indeed, a few have already done, albeit on a small scale. Make it profitable without an artificial tax on other forms of production. If it's a viable business model, people will do it without being forced.

Um... that's the lingo of the energy industry, not environmentalists. It's not particularly helpful to dismiss important matters of energy policy simply because some of it coincides with environmentalist agendas.


"Peak oil" describes the point at which production of oil declines. Oil production in individual wells tends to follow these neat bell curves; it gradually ramps up as you reach the heart of the field, peaks, and finally declines until you're sucking the bottom of the well. National or global oil production, being an aggregate of thousands of wells, follows a similar pattern. "Peak coal" and such represent attempts to apply the model to other resources.

The cheap, easy to extract stuff is at the top. The deeper you drill, the more energy, equipment, and technology you need to extract each barrel until it's no longer viable to exploit the well. In a country that has yet to reach its peak, like Iraq, extracting a barrel of crude might only cost a dollar. In a country that peaked decades ago, like the USA, extracting that barrel would cost five to ten times as much. Going offshore incurs even more costs. Producing oil from unconventional sources, such as shale, can be wildly expensive. It costs upwards of $40 to synthesize a single barrel of crude from the tar sands in Alberta.

Production statistics suggest that we hit global peak oil in 2005. If that's indeed the case, there will be less and less supply to keep up with the growing demand. High school economics should tell you what to expect in situations like that. Or you could just watch the oil prices.


"Grid parity" essentially means that the wholesale production costs of a new energy source can compete with existing electricity generation. The numbers can be a little funny in some cases because of the taxes and subsidies affecting various technologies at both production and implementation stages. Lots of regional factors matter, as well. Not to mention fuel and raw material prices. The economics of electricity production are... complex.

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining that, then.

[Alondro]

Oil prices recently were due to heavy speculation over a numerically small percentage increase in global demand compared to demand as a whole.

Now demand has shrunk and the price has crashed.  I'm now seeing reports that indicate it could make a run for a low of $40/barrel.

So, to keep oil prices low, we just need to keep the world in a recession permanently! 

*eeks*  What if that was The Plan of The Conspiracy from the start?!   

[superluser]

Now demand has shrunk and the price has crashed.  I'm now seeing reports that indicate it could make a run for a low of $40/barrel.

Which, as you can see, would still be a very high price that we didn't see before the Yom Kippur War and haven't seen between the late 80s and 2003-ish.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Where did you get this chart? And is it adjusted for inflation?

[Darkmoon]

I'm, assuming no.

[superluser]

Where did you get this chart? And is it adjusted for inflation?

It says it is, though the more I look at it, the less I trust it.  It says 2007 dollars (and it also said 2006 dollars--that should have been my first clue).  These data, however, do not match up to the EIA's data.

Here is the official government data, adjusted by CPI in 2008 dollars:



There's another chart of GDP-adjusted data in the same spreadsheet, which is pretty much the same.

[Darkmoon]

Where did you get this chart? And is it adjusted for inflation?

It says it is, though the more I look at it, the less I trust it.  It says 2007 dollars (and it also said 2006 dollars--that should have been my first clue).  These data, however, do not match up to the EIA's data.

Here is the official government data, adjusted by CPI in 2008 dollars:



There's another chart of GDP-adjusted data in the same spreadsheet, which is pretty much the same.

I would assume that oil is a commodity that is not adjusted for inflation. There is a x barrel of oil to x dollars equation. If the dollar increases or decreases in value, it has a direct effect on the price of oil. Inflation adjustment would be unnecessary, as that price of oil would automatically adjust for it (if need be).

At least, that sounds right in my head.

[Fragmaster01]

I would assume that oil is a commodity that is not adjusted for inflation. There is a x barrel of oil to x dollars equation. If the dollar increases or decreases in value, it has a direct effect on the price of oil. Inflation adjustment would be unnecessary, as that price of oil would automatically adjust for it (if need be).

At least, that sounds right in my head.

You're thinking exchange rate. Differences in the dollar are dealt with in price, but for inflation of dollar over time(which is what we want), you can just do inflation from the weighted average buying price to get what you want.

[Tezkat]

[quote author=http://londonchronicles.blogspot.com/2008/03/denmarks-carbon-success.html]But a carbon tax isn't a new idea. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries — in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita. ...

From what I've read in this article, the Denmark system of doing things was well-designed, and the article also seems to imply that things were already set up infrastructure-wise for them to switch over to cleaner fuels. Denmark is also one country, and its success does not seem to have been shared anywhere else, previously or as of yet. I would also wonder if it's economic success is directly related to it's cap and trade system, or due to other factors.[/quote]

So what can we learn from their example?

Taxes on carbon emissions can't form a standalone energy policy. An effective green energy strategy involves levelling the playing field. Get dirty energy to pay for clean energy developments, and then allow the market to take over. Denmark did that in its switch to wind power, which they now export (both as technology and electricity) to other countries.

Incidentally, not all cap and trade systems are the same. Obama has expressed support for a pure auction system, for instance, which is considerably more market-focused and doesn't reward companies for historical pollution habits (as your article criticizes).

Firstly, regarding taxation - whether the government spends the money on things I care about or not is irrelevant in this case. I merely wish to point out that the cost to me is still the same.

Secondly, I've never said environmental regulation is evil. These are real problems that need to be dealt with - the point that I have been trying to make is that a better way than forcing things is to make renewable energy attractive enough that business switch by themselves. If it's a viable business plan, people will do it - as indeed, a few have already done, albeit on a small scale. Make it profitable without an artificial tax on other forms of production.

That's remarkably shortsighted. The whole point of taxation is to raise money for the government to spend on things you (hopefully) care about. If they're reallocating tax revenues from expenses that could have been avoided to programs that benefit you, the net cost to you is not the same.


Okay... so let's give the government a mandate to make clean energy competitive. How do you suggest they pay for it? They have to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. Or borrow money from China. Instituting a bunch of regulations without a plan to pay for them is not the answer. No Energy Company Left Behind?

Like it or not, tax policy constitutes an effective tool for influencing market behaviour. France responded to the oil crisis in the 70s by significantly raising taxes on oil. (Seriously... their gas taxes are really high. When I lived there, we used to drive to Germany to fill up.) The market there responded with tiny fuel-efficient cars that you could practically park in your closet. By contrast, big oil and automakers lobbied the US government to limit gas taxes (and fuel efficiency standards). So the country filled with gas-guzzling SUVs and became shackled to Middle Eastern oil. Increase in GDP per capita in the past decade: France +45%, USA +47%. Somehow, exorbitant taxes on oil failed to inflict long term economic damage, as you suggest. It just gave them ugly cars.

Oil prices recently were due to heavy speculation over a numerically small percentage increase in global demand compared to demand as a whole.

Now demand has shrunk and the price has crashed.  I'm now seeing reports that indicate it could make a run for a low of $40/barrel.

So, to keep oil prices low, we just need to keep the world in a recession permanently! 

*eeks*  What if that was The Plan of The Conspiracy from the start?!   D:

Heh. Recession would have an upside if can alter market and consumer behaviour in ways that would support sustainable economic growth in the future.


You couldn't keep crude prices at $40/barrel, though. At that price, it would cost more to produce oil in the Athabasca tar sands than sell it. They were already laying off workers at $60-70. Shutting down those operations would cut the production of America's largest oil supplier in half and remove one of the world's largest proven oil reserves from play. If a "numerically small change" in demand sent prices skyrocketing, that's sure to have an interesting effect on the market.

Alternately, we could keep them going with heavy government subsidies. Heh... bailing out big oil...

[Darkmoon]

I would assume that oil is a commodity that is not adjusted for inflation. There is a x barrel of oil to x dollars equation. If the dollar increases or decreases in value, it has a direct effect on the price of oil. Inflation adjustment would be unnecessary, as that price of oil would automatically adjust for it (if need be).

At least, that sounds right in my head.

You're thinking exchange rate. Differences in the dollar are dealt with in price, but for inflation of dollar over time(which is what we want), you can just do inflation from the weighted average buying price to get what you want.

No, but I'm not thinking exchange rate. The price of oil is directly dependent on the US Dollar. Any time the dollar weakens or strengthens, it has a direct effect on the value of oil (which then means, normally, the markets take that new value into account when "establishing" a price, ie buying or selling).

[Cogidubnus]

So what can we learn from their example?

Taxes on carbon emissions can't form a standalone energy policy. An effective green energy strategy involves leveling the playing field. Get dirty energy to pay for clean energy developments, and then allow the market to take over. Denmark did that in its switch to wind power, which they now export (both as technology and electricity) to other countries.

Incidentally, not all cap and trade systems are the same. Obama has expressed support for a pure auction system, for instance, which is considerably more market-focused and doesn't reward companies for historical pollution habits (as your article criticizes).

I would argue that it is more effective to level the playing field without using governmental intervention and taxes as a crutch. As I have said, green energy being competitive on it's own, without having to be subsidized and without oil being taxed, would be a better measure of its viability, and would be more beneficial than making other forms of production so onerous to pay for that, out of desperation, a switch is necessitated.

That being said, and to reference your example of the French below, I don't know enough about France's or Denmark's economies to say if Cap and Trade or exorbitantly high fuel taxes helped to stimulate their economies, or if it was other factors or other facets of their economies that stimulated growth.

That's remarkably shortsighted. The whole point of taxation is to raise money for the government to spend on things you (hopefully) care about. If they're reallocating tax revenues from expenses that could have been avoided to programs that benefit you, the net cost to you is not the same.

I agree. And I am happier when the government is funding things that I agree with, rather than thirty-thousand dollar studies as to why prisoners want to escape prison.

However, in this case, the point is a non-issue. I'm responding to your assertion that efforts to reduce pollution, in fact, save money. If it saves the government money, that isn't the same as saving me money, as I am taxed the same regardless. In this case, whether or not the government spends the money saved on something I like is irrelevant.

Okay... so let's give the government a mandate to make clean energy competitive. How do you suggest they pay for it? They have to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. Or borrow money from China. Instituting a bunch of regulations without a plan to pay for them is not the answer. No Energy Company Left Behind?

In this case, I disagree with government interference. I'd rather not give the government a mandate. And I don't suggest that they should pay for anything.

T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in Texas, and I'm not aware of any government mandate or subsidy that is making him do so. He's spending 300 million dollars, and I hope he makes a thousand times that back. I hope he succeeds wildly. That, to me - the viability of green energy itself motivating a switch to it for power concerns - is a far more beneficial route to take than to rely on governmental sticks and carrots.

Like it or not, tax policy constitutes an effective tool for influencing market behaviour. France responded to the oil crisis in the 70s by significantly raising taxes on oil. (Seriously... their gas taxes are really high. When I lived there, we used to drive to Germany to fill up.) The market there responded with tiny fuel-efficient cars that you could practically park in your closet. By contrast, big oil and automakers lobbied the US government to limit gas taxes (and fuel efficiency standards). So the country filled with gas-guzzling SUVs and became shackled to Middle Eastern oil. Increase in GDP per capita in the past decade: France +45%, USA +47%. Somehow, exorbitant taxes on oil failed to inflict long term economic damage, as you suggest. It just gave them ugly cars.

To repeat what I said above, I do wonder if it's extremely high taxes that gave France a good economy, or if it were other factors. I don't know enough about the French economy to say for sure, but it doesn't make sense to me that exorbitant taxes would be beneficial to anything.

I feel like we're moving in circles here. To summarize - I don't doubt that what you say could work. But, I think, there are better ways to do it, that do not risk as much, that can accomplish the same thing.

[Fragmaster01]

No, but I'm not thinking exchange rate. The price of oil is directly dependent on the US Dollar. Any time the dollar weakens or strengthens, it has a direct effect on the value of oil (which then means, normally, the markets take that new value into account when "establishing" a price, ie buying or selling).

To keep it short, on one point, you're right, on the other point, you're also right, but the points don't go together. When adjusting for inflation, we want the Present Value of the commodity compared to some time in the past. Currency differences impact the price at each period, sure, but you still want to adjust for inflation to get the PV, regardless of changes in the exchange rate.

[superluser]

No, but I'm not thinking exchange rate. The price of oil is directly dependent on the US Dollar. Any time the dollar weakens or strengthens, it has a direct effect on the value of oil (which then means, normally, the markets take that new value into account when "establishing" a price, ie buying or selling).

Your reasoning is sound.  We wouldn't adjust for inflation when we look at the value of the dollar in relation to gold, for example.

That being said, the charts that I posted are definitely inflation-adjusted.  It says so right on them.

Plus, the EIA also has a non-inflation adjusted chart:



The first time it reached $40/bbl. in nominal dollars was in the 2000s.

[Reese Tora]

Electric cars have another drawback that may not be readily apparent: they are full of electricity.  Normally, who cares, that's inside, you're outside or in an insulated cabin, but in an accident, rescuers are at risk for a deadly electric shock if they don't know your car is live and they touch the wrong thing.

Cars already have a lot of electricity running in them.  All you'd need to change in such a situation would be routing the hot wires away from the chassis and adding a GFCI.

You're not likely to be killed by a car battery, and you can tell if a gas powered car is running.  This is only an issue when a car has crashed and half its guts are strewn accross the pavement.  It's an engineering issue that can be overcome, but it's still an issue and does not have a single simple solution.  I imagine that a lot of safety features fro electric cars will be developed as they become wide spread and as the dangers become apprerent through accidents or crash testing.

Understand, I'm not trying to argue agaisnt electric cars, just pointing out that there are issues that need to be worked out.

[superluser]

You're not likely to be killed by a car battery, and you can tell if a gas powered car is running.  This is only an issue when a car has crashed and half its guts are strewn accross the pavement.  It's an engineering issue that can be overcome, but it's still an issue and does not have a single simple solution.  I imagine that a lot of safety features fro electric cars will be developed as they become wide spread and as the dangers become apprerent through accidents or crash testing.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how a GFCI works, but I thought the idea was that if ever there were a short circuit or a load across the battery that would indicate a human-type resistance, it would simply trip and shut off the current.  If you installed one of those on the battery itself, the chance of electrocution should be minimal.

[Reese Tora]

I am not an electrical engineer, this is stuff that smarter people than I were talking about discussing electric cars, and this a while ago.

[superluser]

I am not an electrical engineer

Neither am I, so if anyone out there is an electrical engineer, I'd be interested in hearing why a GFCI wouldn't work, if indeed a GFCI wouldn't work.

[Tezkat]

In this case, I disagree with government interference. I'd rather not give the government a mandate. And I don't suggest that they should pay for anything.

T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in Texas, and I'm not aware of any government mandate or subsidy that is making him do so. He's spending 300 million dollars, and I hope he makes a thousand times that back. I hope he succeeds wildly. That, to me - the viability of green energy itself motivating a switch to it for power concerns - is a far more beneficial route to take than to rely on governmental sticks and carrots.

Haven't you heard? Pickens's wind farm is sorta kinda on hold due to falling fossil fuel prices.

Demanding that green energy compete on its own merits is all well and good, but the simple fact is you aren't holding their competition to that standard. How could you? The energy industry is oligopolistic and anticompetitive, dominated by fossil fuel companies with trillions in capitalization who have spent billions of dollars lobbying Washington to give them hundreds of billions in support over the last few decades, to say nothing of very favourable regulations. They control the infrastructure and barriers to entry. Whether or not you agree with it ideologically, if you want the energy industry to become anything even vaguely resembling a competitive free market, you need government intervention to level the playing field and allow new players into the game. This is the real world, not the ivory towers of the University of Chicago.

Mr. Pickens's business plan would not have been financially viable without government support. Texas has a Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates the development of renewable sources of electricity (2000 MW by 2009 and 5880 MW by 2015, of which the Pickens wind farm would have been a significant chunk). Wind power received over $600 million in production tax credits last year, which translates into about a $0.02/kWh reduction in wholesale prices. Even these relatively well meaning incentives have unintentionally turned investors away from the sector, since those tax credits have to be renewed every year (and profitability frequently hinges on that small advantage).

By comparison, big oil and friends received nearly $7 billion in direct subsidies last year alone. For some reason, the world's most profitable companies require special incentives to do business in America. That doesn't even count indirect costs. You know, those dreaded externalities. For instance, the federal government has forked out $35 billion to treat respiratory ailments (i.e. "black lung disease") in coal miners. The coal industry is doing the damage, and your tax dollars are paying for it. But you're content to foot the bill so long as your personal taxes don't increase, right?

To repeat what I said above, I do wonder if it's extremely high taxes that gave France a good economy, or if it were other factors. I don't know enough about the French economy to say for sure, but it doesn't make sense to me that exorbitant taxes would be beneficial to anything.

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that there were other factors at play. Economies are wildly complex beasts. Besides, I never claimed that raising energy taxes caused the economic growth, merely that empirical evidence from countries who tried it refutes your claim that it would necessarily harm their economies. Taxes represent a means to an end. If you see them as anything but, you're doing it wrong.

France recognized the dangers of foreign oil dependency back the 1970's (despite being one of the only western countries not affected by the embargo). Their high oil taxes represented a deliberate attempt to wean the country off of fossil fuels. Decades later, that strategy insulated them from the skyrocketting oil prices that crippled the US economy.

[Cogidubnus]

By comparison, big oil and friends received nearly $7 billion in direct subsidies last year alone. For some reason, the world's most profitable companies require special incentives to do business in America. That doesn't even count indirect costs. You know, those dreaded externalities. For instance, the federal government has forked out $35 billion to treat respiratory ailments (i.e. "black lung disease") in coal miners. The coal industry is doing the damage, and your tax dollars are paying for it. But you're content to foot the bill so long as your personal taxes don't increase, right?

If you want to make me personally responsible for the black lung disease in coal miners, you are free to do so. My arguments are, and have been, simply trying to point out that there would be financial ramifications for governmental interference in this.
I am not trying to say that there are not problems that need solving. Several times you've tried to point out to me that there are real environmental issues, and implied that I am either not aware or do not care, which is something that I have repeatedly said that I realize there are, and am not trying to dispute. My entire argument thus far has been there are better ways to do it than you suggest.

In direct response, my tax bill wouldn't change either way, which is somewhat the point I was trying to make earlier. I can say with full confidence that my taxes not having to pay for black lung disease (as in, if people didn't have it) would make me much happier.

I don't think there's anything more for me to say, really. You also bring up something else, though - you said green energy is competitive on a cost per kilowatt ratio. Is that still so, with falling oil prices? Not that I don't expect oil to bounce right back.

[Alondro]

France had an advantage in that they didn't have crazies stopping the construction of nuclear plants.  They get quite a bit of their electricity from nuclear power.

All we get here are protests anytime someone even hints that more nuclear power might be a good idea.

I've heard rumors that new plants might be built soon, but I'm not holding my breath.  Wacko envronmental groups can stall it in the courts for decades.