Take Action to Stimulate Clean Energy!
January 21, 2008 |
Increasing numbers of bloggers and grassroots activists are calling on Congress and the White House to direct a portion of the economic stimulus package (which could be as large as $150 billion) to clean energy.
Take action today by clicking here to sign the Breakthrough Institute petition, and Breakthrough colleagues Energy Action, 1Sky, Center for American Progress, Ella Baker Center, and the Center for State Innovation are also circulating a letter.
Last week we made the argument about how to make investments in clean energy and efficiency part of the stimulus package being negotiated by Democrats and the White House:
If done right, clean energy investments will do more than "stimulate" - they'll grow the economy in the short and long-term. How could it be done? There are at least three ways:
First, significant tax credits could be given to electric vehicles, hybrids, and other highly efficient cars. . . Second, some of the stimulus should be used to effectively lend home and business owners the money to finance the installation of solar systems and energy efficiency measures that result in lower energy costs and, as importantly, create good installation, insulation, and electrician jobs that will stimulate the economy. . . Third, some of the stimulus should be used to invest in the infrastructure needed to build the clean energy economy.
Today, Harvard's Dr. Paul Epstein wrote this great letter in today's New York Times, the economist Dean Baker blogged for clean stimulus, and a group of organizations including Breakthrough Institute, the Sierra Club, Energy Action, Ella Baker, EcoAmerica, 1Sky, Step it Up and many others are calling on Pelosi and Reid to use some of the stimulus to support clean energy.
Comments
Wow. You are voicing the concerns of the wrong critics. People who can get away with saying that any law to reduce carbon emmisions must raise prices and make it painful for the consumer with a straight face must really hate the United States of America.
Do not get me wrong. Green initiatives and a move toward renewable energy is needed. It does not need to ruin the economy, cause economic stife within the family unit and work soley through negative reinforcement.
Instead how about if this blog was truly a blog of BIG ideas. How about if we promote green initiatives through incentivizing and how about if we move to carbon neutral energy by looking at Nuclear.
What this site and many like it fail to realize is that Nuclear is not a dirty word. New Nuclear technologies can be used to actually REDUCE the amount of nuclear waste we have on hand already. By reproccessing existing waste we can produce energy and reduce the toxicity of said waste as well as it's unstability.
By Bryan on 2009 07 01
Cape Wind capital construction cost is widely expected to be around $2 bn. Suffolk University Beacon Hill Institute Cape Wind study estimates the value of public subsidies as 77% of project construction cost.
Wind energy "benefits", as reduction of greenhouse gasses, are alleged. If generous public subsidies were tied by index to reduction in harmful emissions by wind energy, it would be "game over".
Cape Wind is about multinational corporations' interest in tax sheltering-not public or environmental benefits.
By Barbara Durkin on 2009 06 16
Where I see things headed is a more sustainable civilization that can meet the needs of future generations. Our ability to control emissions and clean up the environment is based on having greater access to lower polluting energy sources rather than some idyllic lifestyle. Advanced energy sources such as nuclear fusion (even the controversial nuclear fission) would allow greater opportunities to clean up the environment while meeting human needs across the globe.
By R Margolis on 2009 06 04
Robert,
You are pointing to an interesting ethical problem. Humans are blessed and cursed with a limited-but-functional ability to see and comprehend the potential for endgame, be it climate change, overpopulation, other environmental mess, etc... and this capacity to see large-scale endgame increases as the time devoted to daily survival decreases.
It's obviously a good idea to care about the Endgame... but how do humans ethically limit other humans' energy consumption? It's one thing when it's intercultural... but how do you tell some other culture that what your culture has been doing for a long time is wrong?
Do you have the right to tell someone living a developing world existence that their way of life is "saner" than yours? Does that romantic idea remain somehow relevant even when disease, shorter life span and all the other grinding realities of poverty are accounted for?
How much control do we have over this larger Endgame Problem, and what do we have to give up (like the idea that all humans are basically equal, for instance) to have the kind of control you want to have?
Is there a way to think about this Endgame without prescribing permanent poverty for a huge chunk of the world?
By Deborah Fisher on 2009 05 31
Don't you ever worry where it's all heading? If we really did have access to limitless clean energy we would inevitably use that energy to ramp up population and completely trash the environment. About the only think keeping us in check is the fact that energy IS limited. Implicit in your last post is the suggestion that "much of the world" should adopt the high-consumption lifestyle of the rich West.
In my view we should be trying to gently back away from the obsessive growth mentality and return to a saner way of life. So would this be a good thing if it works?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/28/national-ignition-facility-fusion-energy
By Robert on 2009 05 29
This climate change is the biggest fraud perpetuated on mankind, and it is going to cost the average consumer a lot of money not to mention a reduction in GDP, a loss of American competiveness, an increase in unemployment. When are the American people going to rise up against this madness?
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2008/05/students-held-hostage-in-world-gone-mad.html
By Mark Dias on 2009 05 28
For much of the world that has no electricity, conservation is not an option (i.e., cannot conserve when already at zero). Even in the developed world, energy sources such as wood simply will not provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind require cheap energy storage technologies to avoid the double trap of paying for a part-time energy source and and part-time storage unit. We need energy sources that are cleaner, yet still abundant and reliable.
By R Margolis on 2009 05 28
R Margolis - It's a question of where you start. If the market can be rigged through caps, tax or whatever to favour clean energy sources then the technology will optimise over time though the normal workings of the market. Also, there is an enormous amount that can be achieved through conservation. We have halved our domestic energy bills in the last 3 years without any impact on standard of living (and it keeps me fit collecting wood for the log burner!).
At the moment it is a mug's game trying to harvest clean energy when there is all that nearly free dirty energy just waiting to be dug up. The externalised costs need to be internalised.
By Robert on 2009 05 27
Even if you could accomplish the political miracle of getting acceptance of high carbon prices, there is no easy, off the shelf, renewable energy technology that can replace coal and natural gas. Energy storage technologies of this scale to balance renewables simply do not exist. You need to at least have a path to the technology before you can transition the economy.
As for the steady state economy/population, it will still require a good deal of energy to maintain standard of living. Even if population is frozen at the current number, increases in energy will be required to alleviate poverty and provide basic health and economic services.
By R Margolis on 2009 05 27
The leaders of the family of humanity can do better and I trust all of us, leaders and followers alike, will choose necessary behavioral change rather than the profane maintenance of a morally disengaged and patently unsustainable socioeconomic status quo. Socioeconomic reasoning is feeble, fundamentally flawed reasoning, and suggests its inconsequentiality, because such
By Steven Earl Salmony on 2009 05 27
You are forgetting a few important points:
1. Regardless of the number of offsets, there would be a CO2 price ... emissions will be lower than the business as usual case. Offsets will NOT cause emissions growth to be faster than it would have been absent a CO2 price.
2. Increasing the number of offsets merely lowers the CO2 price. Political opposition to any CO2 policy is driven by economic fears.
3. Offsets provide environmental insurance. If technologies cannot deploy as fast as we hope, then offsets provide a way to make real emissions reductions from sources outside of the cap.
4. There is no way that the market will provide enough offsets to hit the limit for many years. The involvement of the NGOs has ensured that offsets that might be allowed will be of higher quality -- these are limited.
5. The Avoided Deforestation Partners (ADP) have developed a robust set of principles -- they have significantly addressed many of the underlying problems of one of the largest potential sources of offsets.
6. The CO2 price in the market on any given day drives operating decisions for that day. It is the long term CO2 price projection that drives long term investment decisions. Most models show CO2 prices in the mid to longer term going more than high enough to incentivize the investment in non-emitting technologies.
7. Climate policy will not be set once then forgotten. Like all environmental laws, it will very likely tighten be improved later -- getting the overall framework developed is the hardest part. Once that is enacted and people see the economy hasn't been destroyed (well, more than today) improvements will be easier.
Don't despair!
By Kevin Leahy on 2009 05 27
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus do not impress me. Anyone who preaches perpetual economic growth is seriously out of touch with reality.
The economy will stop growing. The human population will also stop growing.
These must occur by necessity and no amount of conservatives trashing the planet for the economy;s sake will prevent it from occurring.
There is a natural life cycle for civilizations. You may have noticed that the Roman Empire, British Empire and Soviet Union no longer exist. Nothing lasts forver.
If anyone imagines that Global Technological Civilization will last forever that person is delusional and has probably swallowed the lies of the economists.
Our civilization is already dying. The death of technological civilization has already become evident in a thousand different ways.
Yet these two fools claim that the economy must keep growing forever and that humans should care more about the economy than anything else.
Humans should keep in mind that Homo sapiens can go extinct. The economy won't mean much when humankind is extinct.
Instead of worrying about the economy, humankind really should worry about survival.
By David Mathews on 2009 05 27
Tom, we're trying to expand the discussion and illuminate the bill's weaknesses so that climate legislation can be strengthened. That's why we've made all our analysis open and transparent and highlighted the most critical areas for improvement.
By Teryn Norris on 2009 05 26
I think it may be a little disingenuous to claim Romm is "trying to shut down debate" on Waxman-Markey - any more than BI is.
By Tom Schueneman on 2009 05 26
Dan, thanks for the comment. First, this is far less about domestic offsets than it is about international offsets. If domestic offsets are unavailable at the scale allowed by the bill, then additional international offsets will be permitted, and more international offsets = far less pressure to reduce US emissions.
Second, you can't really disprove anything with a model. It's a model, and the simple fact that you have to rely on fallible models to make this point undermines the "emissions reduction certainty" supposedly offered by a "cap" on carbon (and the central reason people are fighting so hard to get one in place). That was the main point of highlighting the offset provisions: if this degree of offsetting is allowed, the cap is far from certain, and effectively non-binding.
In fact, the offset provisions and the "allowance reserve pool" mechanism (which floods the market with addition allowances if prices get too high, forcing prices back down) mean that rather than providing certainty that emissions will fall, the ACES cap and trade program will only drive emissions reductions IF a number of contingencies prove true. Emissions will only be required to fall in the supposedly
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 05 26
Personally, I think the only policy that can ultimately work is to place a global cap on the amount of coal, oil and gas that is extracted each year, then reduce this cap by an agreed percentage each year with the objective of leaving as much as possible permanently in the ground. That is pretty much what Hansen is saying (although he focusses mainly on just coal). Market forces are incredibly powerful. Faced with this new world shortage of fossil fuel they would rapidly find an optimum mix of new energy sources and conservation so that business could continue without undue interruption.
Politically such a global carbon-capping scheme is just not possible at the moment, but this could change quickly as new climate-related natural disasters occur.
I don't think Waxman-Markey will have any effect whatsoever on US emissions and definitely not on global emissions. I am deeply sceptical of any piece of legislation as complex as W-M, but equally I don't think a simple carbon tax would work either - how would you stop the revenue being funnelled into carbon-intensive public sector projects? In the meantime W-M gives the impression of taking the problem seriously but in reality just kicks it into the long grass for another 20 years.
TBI's idea that some technological breakthrough will make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy is nice, but in my view a long-shot. Definitely worth major investment, but don't rely on it coming up with the solution. Worse still, even if clean energy can be made cheaply there is every reason to expect all available reserves of coal, oil and gas will be extracted anyway - liquid fuels are useful for aviation and a host of other applications not easily addressed by cheap, clean electricity.
Political will is the key. If coal was viewed with the same abhorrance as asbestos then it would be banned overnight.
By Robert on 2009 05 26
I too have had my comments critical of cap-and-trade deleted at Climate Progress. But I commend Joe Romm for maintaining that very informative site which has served as a useful forum for technical and political discussions. I hope he will continue that good work after ending his role as a spear-carrier for policies he initially opposed.
Thanks to Roger Pielke, Jr. for refreshing our memory.
The climate progress we need ultimately must come from technical progress, so how does Waxman-Markey help there? Not much. The best its advocates can say is that it is a first step, and that even a flawed bill is better than doing nothing.
The price per ton of CO2 is ridiculously small, and big emitters don't even pay anything for most of their indulgences. Europe has shown that cap-and-trade does not reduce emissions. And what happens to the auction money? What is expected to go to clean tech research and deployment will go instead to health care. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conrad-open-to-energy-taxes-for-healthcare-reform-2009-03-29.html
And then there is the "trade" part of cap-and-trade: a new junk market for Wall Street to scam with, using tree offsets. Who will guarantee that these trees are thriving, how will we keep them watered during a worldwide drought when our own forests are drying up and burning, and how will anyone know what these traded offsets are really worth? Both in origination and in risk packaging, there is ample latitude for fraud, just as there was with mortgage-backed securities.
Looks like the environmentalists supporting the Democrats have been played for fools. This will dampen enthusiasm for the next steps we need, and ultimately must hurt President Obama.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 05 25
Waxman has a clip on you tube floating around where he admits he has not read the bill. Jowe Romm most like also has not.
our constitution still denies taxation without representation. If there are penalties and tax components, don't we have the right to know?
By seven on 2009 05 25
I have been reading ClimateProgress for over a year. It's entertaining and topical, but I agree with all your critisisms of Romm. He shuts down debate with anyone who disagrees with him in even the slightest detail.
I have now been moderated to death and then banned twice on his blog. If you read the comments that survive they are now all of the "Joe
you're a fantastic guy I want to have your babies keep up the good work" variety.
By Robert on 2009 05 24
I'll have to agree with Romm on the need for high carbon pricing to effect real change, assuming that exacting equitable compensation for the externalized but very real costs of fossil fuel use is "high".
Unless and until market signals functionally reflect real ecological and social costs, markets will be the problem, not the solution.
But cap and trade does indeed risk smoke and mirrors, and other political and corporate shenanigans.
A carbon tax, though, will do nicely. Hasn't been successfully done before? Neither has any new policy implementation, until it has. Folks in the pre-world war II 20th century would have thought the endangered species act or the creation of the EPA to be pipe dreams.
By theCascadian on 2009 05 24
Here are some quotes from Romm:
On the use of offsets generally:
"Q: What is the difference between carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securites?
A: Lipstick.
Carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securities are quite similar in that is impossible for the vast majority of people, even experts, to know what value they have, if any."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/02/q-what-is-the-difference-between-carbon-offsets-and-mortgage-backed-securites/
On the use of offsets in last year's Lieberman-Warner bill:
"Now when I redo the math, it seems the most likely outcome of this bill is that U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2025 would we about the same as they are now, and possibly higher. If that's the best we can do for a piece of legislation that's deader than a dead parrot -- it is a dead parrot whose body has been given to a veterinary anatomy class for dissection and had its heart removed -- why bother?"
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/27/boxer-bill-update-probably-no-us-co2-emissions-cut-until-after-2025/
On the USCAP proposal:
"The USCAP plan would call for a reduction of 1.0 to 1.4 billion tons of U.S. GHGs in 2020, while allowing 2 billion or more tons of offsets, at least half of which don't even have to be in this country. When would US carbon dioxide emissions see serious reductions under this plan? Who knows?"
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/15/nrdc-edf-uscap-us-climate-action-partnership-plan-coal-offset/
And on forestry:
"Offset projects should simply not include tree planting."
http://www.grist.org/article/the-first-rule-of-carbon-offsets-no-trees
On an earlier McCain plan:
"If emissions reductions can be done through a rigorous and verifiable process, then they can and should be included in the overall cap. The probability that there are offset-like emissions reductions floating around the ether that are both abundant and cheap is quite small. That is why a major offset-based strategy would "involve substantial issuance of credits that do not represent real emissions reductions," as the Stanford study concluded. That report's policy conclusion:
*****We argue that the U.S., which is in the midst of designing a national regulatory system, should not rely on offsets to provide a reliable ceiling on compliance costs....
Offsets can play a role in engaging developing countries, but only as one small element in a portfolio of strategies.... *****
The entire foundation of McCain's climate plan is built on quicksand."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-climate-plan-a-fra_b_101390.html
On the use of offsets in cap and trade:
"Let's hope Congress actually listens to GAO and sharply scales back the use of offsets in future climate bills."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/05/gao-rips-rip-offsets-the-use-of-carbon-offsets-in-a-cap-and-trade-system-can-undermine-the-systems-integrity/
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2009 05 23
Come on. The EPA already disproved this notion: their modeling of the bill shows that only 100 million tons of domestic offsets will be in used in the year 2020. Also, Waxman-Markey requires you purchase 5 offsets for every 4 allowances. There is something to be said about the "additionality" of certain offsets, but this is an overly simplistic analysis.
See
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/WaxmanMarkeyExecutiveSummary.pdf
or
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/epa-domestic-offsets-waxman-markey.gif
By Dan Sanchez on 2009 05 23
I like the stuff you post on TBI - you share a healthy scepticism of the loophole ridden, easily gamed and weak W-M. Its rubbish - the US can do better than that.
Have you seen that mad Joe is having a pop at you again?
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/22/waxman-markey-offsets-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-media/
By Robert on 2009 05 23
Unfortunately, this is only the final STATE permit. Federal approval is still needed. The Cape Wind Project needs a final letter of approval from Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to finally begin construction. Let's hope that approval comes soon. Salazar has been talking up the potential for offshore wind power in the United States and touting his agencies efforts to smooth the way for expanded offshore wind power production. Time for him to put his permits where his mouth is.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 05 22
Jesse - thank you thank you thank you for putting all of this together.
-Jay
By Jay O’Hara on 2009 05 21
The graphs show the offsets extending all the way out to 2050, and increasing substantially as a percentage of the cap level. This implies that the offset emissions will not be creditable to other countries' GHG regulations, either because other countries do not adopt comparable GHG regulations, or because they are not allowed to take credit for emission reductions that have already been bought by the U.S. and secured by long-term contracts and commercial acquisitions.
If other countries are allowed to later take credit for those offset reductions, then we would have a perverse interest in not having our GHG regulatory policy adopted by others, because we may no longer be able to meet our current compliance obligations (let alone more stringent future regulations) when those offset credits are no longer available. Conversely, if we are able to lock in long-term access to cheap offset credits, then those credits will not satisfy the additionality requirement because our monopolization of low-price compliance options will leave other countries with more expensive options and will deter them from adopting similar regulations.
Moreover, offsets will not necessarily reduce costs for our economy. They will reduce prices, but not costs. Which will cost less: a $10/ton allowance that is freely allocated (or auctioned, with auction revenue being cycled back into the local economy), or a $5/ton allowance, with the entire $5 being exported overseas? Price does not equate to cost. Does anyone in the legislature understand this?
By Ken Johnson on 2009 05 21
I have grave concerns w/ modeling our energy transformation after America's agricultural transformation. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan makes a very strong argument that American's agricultural transformation is a huge failure, harming the environment as much as our health. To get a flavor of what's in the book, you could watch the documentary "King Corn"...
By winbert on 2009 02 09
I heard the NPR piece. I wonder if the goal should be making low-carbon energy about as cheap as fossil fuels. We need to look at all the low-carbon options. Renewables are the most popular, but the energy storage issue needs to be solved to really open up these sources.
By R Margolis on 2009 02 05