Michael & Ted Take on Conservatives
February 4, 2008 |
It wasn't enough for Michael and Ted to critique liberal environmentalists - now they've gone and tangled with conservatives too. They recently took Newt Gingrich to task for his modest plan to address climate change, challenging him to put government money where his mouth is:
In recent years, conservatives have talked the talk of technology innovation, but have not, unfortunately, backed it up with strong support for large public investments in clean energy. Republican presidential front-runners, from John McCain to Mitt Romney to Mike Huckabee, have acknowledged the importance of doing something about global warming, but they all lack plans for major public investment in technology.
In some instances, they found common ground. Gingrich wrote:
We reject, along with Shellenberger and Nordhaus, the approaches of those who insist on a bureaucratic command-and-control structure to oversee our environmental future.
Their four-part exchange, which includes Jonathan Adler in the final entry, is posted on the New Republic.
Comments
Apart from the grid connected solar power plants, the Indian government is also focussing on roof top solar power plants. Utilities such as NDPL (Delhi state power distribution utility) have come up with net metering schemes for roof top power systems connected to the grid. This would boost the solar power market through distributed generation.
For more information visit http://www.solarindiaonline.com/
By Nimisha Garg on 2009 07 28
Hi Katherine, thanks for the comment. The WashPo figure is an annual figure ($44-66 billion annually) and the figure above is the sum-total of the 10 year investment plan China is reportedly planning ($440 to $660 billion over ten years). Hope that explains it.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 07 20
There would be a huge demand for solar energy in China and India. The right government investment policies will definitely help to grow the industry.
By Magniwork Generator on 2009 07 19
I think there may be a typo here. The Washington post article lists China as planning to invest 44-66 billion. Thanks for the great analysis.
By Katherine Philipson on 2009 07 19
This is something that I posted on climateprogress.org on July 9, responding to Joe Romm's blog about James Hansen's HuffingtonPost article. This has relevance to "The Need for a New Framework ..." (aka "Plan B"), so I'm cross-posting it here. (Joe Romm has not yet released this from moderation quarantine -- not sure if he's going to. Some readers may find my perspectives to be offensive or objectionable.)
***
For all of Waxman-Markey's faults, I think it gets two things right: (1) allowance set-asides to fund tropical forest conservation, and (2) a meaningful price floor. These measures move U.S. policy closer to the rational and pragmatic goal of minimizing emissions within limits of cost acceptability. However, they leave W-M with no coherent policy foundation, because its other regulatory mechanisms -- the cap, trading, economy-wide linkage, banking, borrowing, and offsets -- all operate to achieve the converse objective of minimizing costs within limits of a predetermined (and unsustainable) emission cap.
The irrationality of the latter objective is demonstrated by the U.S. SO2 trading system, which continues to focus regulatory incentives on further cost reductions -- not emission reductions -- even when allowances are selling at a fraction of what was expected when the cap-and-trade system was enacted, and even when quantifiable benefits of further emission reductions would exceed costs by a factor of 25.
[Note to JR re "... So they do more than is necessary ...": That is because of banking, which has the effect of shifting the over-allocation into future compliance periods. They do more now only so they can do less later.]
Suppose that the SO2 allowances had been sold at fixed price (no emission cap), with sales revenue distributed according to the same proportionate allocation formula that was used for allowance allocation (or any other preferred formula). If the price were set at the lower limit of the original expectation level (about $650/ton, compared to the actual market of about $200/ton) then SO2 scrubber technology would have been adopted much sooner, and the more ambitious goal of the EPA's recent Clean Air Interstate Rule might have been achieved years ago without further regulatory intervention.
But that's not the kind of program that Hansen and other carbon-tax advocates are propounding for GHG regulation. Their proposals are very similar to Obama's original 100% auction, 80% tax dividend plan, the main difference being that allowances would be sold rather than auctioned. Obama, to his credit, knows how to recognize a brick wall when he sees it and he backed off on his original plan. The carbon-tax lobby, by contrast, is still banking its head against the wall in its insistence that carbon taxes operate primarily to extract revenue from the regulated industry. In my view, it is this dogged and dogmatic adherence to a "punitive" regulatory approach that leaves W-M as "the only game in town".
However, if tax revenue is used only to finance or incentivize emission reductions in the taxed industry, then I think there would be three consequences: (1) Industry costs would be dramatically lower (even if emission-reduction incentives are much higher than cap-and-trade's), so pricing instruments would lose their political stigma. (2) Price certainty, in addition to low costs, would make pricing instruments much more attractive to industry. (3) Pricing instruments would be more compatible with sectoral policies having limited scope, and hence limited political opposition. (Monolithic, economy-wide policies like W-M's tend to lead to "monolithic, economy-wide" political opposition, but the rationale for economy-wide linkage disappears when the policy objective is minimum emissions -- not minimum costs.)
Passage of W-M is not a sure bet, so it would be prudent to start thinking about some kind of viable "Plan B".
By Ken Johnson on 2009 07 11
Re "a New Framework": One alternative approach is the following:
"A Decarbonization Strategy for the Electricity Sector: New-Source Subsidies"
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427106
(This is a draft publication submitted to Energy Policy.)
By Ken Johnson on 2009 07 08
I am glad that China and India are cooperating on Launch New Solar Energy Projects.
By solar panels on 2009 07 08
Breakthrough Institute Team,
I would love to feature this article on my solar news site - solarfeeds.com - with your permission. I will linkback, etc. and even set up your blog as a contributor if you want. please email me to discuss. thanks!
By scott weitzman on 2009 07 08
You are very Correct ! I am glad someone is looking at the future this is exactly what the U.S.A. needs "Right Now" Once this goal has been reached never again make the mistakes to share the insights or know-how to the eastern part of the world ! Stop being to so friendly to those asian auto makers let them work hard and pay the high import fees even if their cars are made in the states...
By Jose Nevarez on 2008 12 16
I want to know where the autor, Jeffrey Feldman, buys the crack he is smoking.
By Joey BagOfDonuts on 2008 12 01
Peter, The public has spoken fairly loud and clear that they don't want Congress raising energy prices. And, as you know, there is a lot of evidence that voters don't trust that they will ever get the "dividend" back from the government. Indeed, cap and dividend is the least popular policy proposal of the three tested in a survey by EMC Research and American Environics. Even cap and trade was more popular.
Yes, if we spend $50 billion per year building transmission lines, investing in RD&D, and financing a National Energy Education Act the money will have to come from somewhere. But it's a relatively small amount of money per person -- about $150 per year -- compared to the thousands of dollars per year that cap and dividend would cost the average American.
And at a time of recession, there's a good argument for making those infrastructure, technology, and education investments through deficit spending, or using the money from oil drilling. Raising energy prices during a recession is not good politics.
Michael
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 10 06
Carbon pricing with revenue recycling isn't dead; on the contrary, it's gaining support. See http://www.carbontax.org/blog/ and http://www.capanddividend.org.
Frankly, I don't understand why Michael Shellenberger spends so much time attacking carbon pricing (whether with a tax or cap and auction). It's not incompatible with public investment in R&D; in fact, it would make such investment more urgent. To be sure, carbon pricing is politically challenging because it does raise prices, but revenue recycling addresses that liability by giving the money back.
Public investment isn't a free lunch; the money has to come from somewhere. Moreover, it doesn't reduce carbon emissions in the short term, or spur private investment in clean technologies that already exist. Still, I agree we need more of it. But why go on the warpath against other policies that would help solve the climate crisis?
As an aside, no one but you has used the term
By Peter Barnes on 2008 09 24
I agree, c&t is deader than ever. On the VC-green tech side of things, however, things look a little brighter. I saw an article today that said, despite the market fallout, venture capitalists are still bullish about clean technology.
www.eenews.net: A survey of 301 venture capitalists and executives with links to the industry shows the vast majority still expect strong growth for the environmental technology sector. They also anticipate an increasingly active role for venture capital and a bigger market for green investments in 2009.
Ninety-one percent of respondents said venture capital investment in green technology would continue to grow. Participants in the poll said investments would be spread across a diverse array of technologies, but most thought storage technologies like fuel cells and advanced batteries would attract the most funds. Clean coal and wind power were also expected to be big winners next year.
Fully half of those questioned said they predict that investment in the sector will expand by 20 percent or more in 2009 over 2008 levels. Thirty-four percent expect investment growth rates between 10 and 19 percent. One percent expect investment to drop below 2008 levels next year.
So, all looks well and good for the rich guys who are future-oriented. I suppose we'll see soon if the gov't is...
By Alisha on 2008 09 24
From what I have seen in the recent past (i.e., dotcom mess as well as the current fiasco), folks are willing to throw a lot of private sector investment at things as long as they think there is a quick fortune to be made. It would certainly be a good lesson learned if the next wave of investments would be for new infrastructure (energy and otherwise) rather than just some get rich quick scheme.
By R Margolis on 2008 09 24
It's not too boring -- voters love the vision of energy independence and clean energy jobs from investments in technology. The problem is that they have no voice in Washington. Green groups are focused on new regulations. Clean energy companies are focused on getting their tiny little tax credits (which they can't seem to get). And Democrats insist on cutting fossil fuel subsidies to fund clean energy, which makes enemies out of members of Congress who benefit from those subsidies. A straight investment play is needed by Democrats, perhaps tied to this financial bailout.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 09 22
I am always amazed on how there is always money for bailouts (and money for investors to waste in the first place...), but never for infrastructure changes. I guess folks are too often enamored with the prospect of quick and easy money. Energy investment is too boring?
By R Margolis on 2008 09 22
Adam, it seems to me like you might be confusing the end with the means here. You quote McKinsey:
"our carbon productivity must increase tenfold by 2050 to maintain economic growth while scaling back emissions--essentially, we need to create 7,300 dollars of GDP per ton of carbon in 2050, while we are only creating 740 dollars now." And then you conclude:
"Yes, that's right; we need more prosperity and more growth in order to tackle climate change, not less."
Productivity is basically just a fraction; it has a numerator and a denominator. Carbon Productivity (or intensity) is GDP/CO2. Since McKinsey notes that we have a goal in terms of limiting emissions, you can consider the denominator fixed. So McKinsey's point, as I see it anyway, is applying the simple property of fractions to emissions and GDP--
If we want to achieve our social goal of high growth (raise the numerator), while reducing emissions a certain amount (lowering the denominator), then inherently we have to raise productivity (you can't raise a numerator and lower a denominator without increasing the value of the fraction). So the emphasis on productivity is a means of achieving growth without bringing climate disaster, not an argument for "more growth." It's also not an argument for "more growth" because "growth" as commonly used means not productivity (the fraction), but economic output (or GDP, just the numerator). So "more productivity" does not mean "more growth."
Also note that just framing the issue in terms of productivity obscures the fact that if we achieve the desired level of productivity, but then growth exceeds expectations, we would still end up with too much CO2 emitted (and so disaster, if you believe in tipping points). So productivity is not the goal, its just something we need to recognize we need to improve greatly to achieve the true goal- emissions reductions- while preserving the opportunity for growth.
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 06
Actually, the June issue of the Atlantic has a really good article about what is going on in China regarding the environment. If you do not subscribe to the Atlantic, I suggest you do so because they have the best China correspondent, James Fallows. He writes that the Chinese government have indicated that it is serious about addressing climate change issues, and it has been made clear to local officials that it is going to be a big factor in their performance reviews. At this point, the Chinese leaders have concluded that improving the environment is not at the expense of development. Rather, the Chinese economy and health will be in jeopardy if they do not address it now.
By Yang on 2008 05 10