A msg from B. Boxer (D) to the "naysayers"

[kristopher]

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Clean Energy Action Will Jump Start Our Economy

Sarah Palin's "cap and tax" opinion piece printed in the Washington Post this week reminds me of every naysayer who has spoken out against progress in cleaning up pollution.

Whether it was the debate over the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law or any of our other landmark environmental laws, one pattern has always been clear:

Time and time again, pessimists -- often affiliated with polluting industries -- predicted loss of jobs and great costs to taxpayers. And time and time again, our environmental laws have cleaned up the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the communities we live in at far lower cost than expected.
Take the acid rain program established in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

The naysayers said it would cost consumers billions in higher electricity rates, when in reality the opposite happened, and electricity rates declined an average of 19 percent between 1990 and 2006.
The naysayers also said that cost to business would be more than $50 billion a year, when in reality the health and other benefits of the program outweighed the costs 40 to 1.

Another charge was that it would cost the economy millions of jobs. In reality, the American economy grew by 20 million jobs between...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/clean-energy-action-will_b_235382.html

[hughee99]

1. Did electricity rates actually decline from 1990 to 2006?

Why do I find that stat difficult to believe?

[NNadir]

2. Um, because it's pure garbage....

The person writing the OP has big, big, big, big, big problems with numbers.

For instance, he thinks that http://www.solarbuzz.com/">20.40 isn't larger than http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html">11.61 and that http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2006.XLS">not only that 616 > 860 but also that 616 is a significant number when compared with 108,319.

I kid you not. You would be amazed what you see here at E&E where numbers are concerned.

[bananas]

5. "You would be amazed what you see here at E&E where numbers are concerned." BWAHAHA!

You finally get something right!
NNadir has big, big, big, big, big problems with numbers!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bananas]

4. Yes, they did, in constant dollars.

Here's a table, in 2006 dollars: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/electricity_rate.html

Definition of "constant dollars": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_dollars
which is a standard way of comparing prices.

[hughee99]

6. Good table, maybe that stat doesn't seem right to be because

I've lived in Massachusetts over that period. While almost everyone else's prices have gone down, ours are up 11%.

[heartlessrock]

3. /

O8)

[hunter]

7. Burning coal is cheap in the short run, Barbara.

But it's not a nice thing to do.

When all the numbers are run burning coal is going to turn out to be the most expensive and deadliest thing humans have ever done.

[phantom power]

8. This is one of those Zombie Bad Analogies That Will Not Die

"We cleaned up sulfur emissions so we can clean up CO2 too."

No, we can't. We could scrub sulfur because it is a trace pollutant. CO2 is a fundamental reaction product that comes out by the ton.

[kristopher]

10. That doesn't affect the policy tool's ability to do the job.

Cap and trade is simple in concept and (comparatively) simple to execute. By design it is the most effective tool out there for making large scale technological change happen in the most efficient and timely manner possible. It doesn't matter whether it is the technology to capture particulate pollutants or the technology to replace fossil fuels, it works by creating a set of market incentives that direct funding in the desired direction.

[hunter]

12. It's an ineffective cowardly way out. Politically viable, but useless.

You want to direct funding? How about a straight carbon tax per ton of carbon released?

[kristopher]

15. A straight tax is right up there with nationalizing the coal industry

While I like the simplicity of a straight tax, I prefer something that will work. If you can't get it passed, a policy has ZERO (0) chance of success no matter how elegantly simple it is. Your incessant calls for unworkable solutions amount to a full throated endorsement of business as usual.

[phantom power]

17. I have a theory about why cap-and-trade is more politically popular.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, it's a cynical theory: Politicians gravitate toward it because it's also politically easy to engineer it with a lot of loopholes, so that the "cap" part has no real teeth, and the "trade" part allows for the Banksters to play new kinds of unregulated market games, award themselves more million dollar bonuses and rhodium parachutes.

However, in principle I actually agree that if the legislation was engineered properly, with no loopholes, and backed up with genuine punitive authority, and all the necessary emissions accounting was sufficiently accurate and sufficiently funded, and over time the political will was maintained to periodically reduce the total Cap...

It would work in principle.

[GliderGuider]

18. If it were made airtight (CO2-tight?)

It would be as politically unpalatable as a straight tax. It's is only popular because it can be gamed.

The fundamental expectation of politics is, "Anything that can be gamed will be gamed." So where does that leave us?

[kristopher]

19. That isn't true.

It is acceptable because it is proven to work both theoretically and practically, and, since its structure is oriented around market mechanisms, it disarms politically motivated ideological objections to "government control".

[GliderGuider]

20. It's acceptable to the politicians because it can be disarmed by stealth.

The politicians can make it acceptable to their electorate by touting its theoretical and practical workability. Win-win. The only loser is the climate.

[kristopher]

21. Bullshit.

As with your "gaming the system" remark, that applies equally to all policies.

One more you choose to endorse a do nothing approach while attempting to hide it under a fig leaf of cynicism.

[GliderGuider]

23. I'm not saying, "Don't implement it"

I'm saying we should be honest about its shortcomings, heave realistic expectations of its effectiveness.

I think taxation and rationing will prove harder to game on a grand scale than cap and trade, but they will only be possible once the global public has been "scared straight".

What I expect we'll do is implement cap and trade and watch it fail like the EU ETS has. Then once CO2 hits 450 in around 2030 there will finally be public support for a taxation or FF rationing system

[kristopher]

24. That's the kind of statement that causes me problems

You wrote "implement cap and trade and watch it fail like the EU ETS has".

That is a demonstrably false statement. As I pointed out earlier, the EU program has just started rolling and *it is having the desired effect*. The primary drawback has been the influence of the US in blunting the global effort. Within the design of the EU program there have been problem areas identified in the 2005 (when their program kicked off) - 2007 phase. Efforts were made to address these problems (like tighter review of what qualifies to earn carbon credits) in the current phase which runs through 2013.

It is simply impossible to claim at this point that the carbon control effort is a failure especially when it 1) is evolving as designed and 2) showing staggering success in encouraging the growth of renewable energy infrastructure.

Point 2 is the most important metric available to judge early performance since the renewable infrastructure is the enabler of carbon reduction.

I'm with you on the desire for honesty - how about delivering a bit of it?

[phantom power]

22. What you just said is very interesting.

I'm unaware of any actual implementation of a cap-and-trade system, that would prove the idea "practically." Is there one?

[kristopher]

25. More than

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[hunter]

26. That's not carbon dioxide.

SO₂ and NO_x are different animals.

Europe is trading in carbon dioxide and it's not working.

Emission Impossible: access to JI/CDM credits in phase II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme

1 June 2007

The decisions to allow access to large volumes of credits and concerns over the additionality of these credits raises serious questions about the extent to which the ETS will deliver significant emissions reductions during phase II. It is vital that these shortcomings are put right in the review for the ETS post 2012.

http://www.wwf.org.uk/article_search_results.cfm?uNewsID=2394

The U.S. proposal discounts imported credits, but it's still very likely the total U.S. output of carbon dioxide would not decrease and overall world output would still increase.

[kristopher]

31. And you still don't know what you are talking about.

[phantom power]

29. You know, I don't think I ever realized S and NOx were cap/trade....

Still, that brings me back to my position that scrubbing S and NOx, in the big picture, wasn't that hard, and more to the point, it did not require any fundamental changes.

By that I mean, to get rid of S/NOx, nobody had to change the energy infrastructure. We continued to burn coal in our power plants, and continued to burn gasoline in our cars. What we did was basically add scrubbers and catalytic converters to the exhaust pipes.

Getting rid of CO2 cannot be accomplished by adding some gadgets. It will require actually shutting down coal plants, and driving fewer fossil-fueled motors. So, to make that work, the accounting needs to be very rigorous, and the punitive side needs to be very very well enforced. You're going to have to be able to say to a utility company, "you're going to shut down 5% of your coal plants by year X, or we're going to shut you down."

It can absolutely work in principle, but I find it hard to believe in reality.

[kristopher]

30. It doesn't matter.

The scale of the desired change is greater, true. However I think you are still misunderstanding the goal.

In spite of the fact that the ultimate goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, the primary goal the policy drives for is a change the technology that makes up "the playing field". C&T isn't going to require a "regulator" to step in and say, "reduce or we are going to shut you down", it instead works by sending the equivalent of a tax bill to the offender.

If they refuse to pay the "taxes" then they will be subject to the same collection process that all other corporations experience. That increases the costs of the product associated with the pollutant.

The other side of the equation is that when renewable energy is produced their carbon allowance will be sold to an entity that hasn't decreased their carbon production and the value of the avoided carbon is theirs to add to their bottom line. This decreases the cost of the renewable product.

This builds in an increasing advantage for the desired technology.

Corporations HATE financial uncertainty.

Instead of waiting to run into a wall that may be years away, their behavior tends towards taking a proactive approach to meeting the ultimate standards that are the goal of the policy.

This behavior results in a pace of change that is very rapid.

*Rough* cost parity now exists between wind/solar and coal/natural gas. Most of the remaining advantage that fossil fuels enjoy are a result of structural characteristics of orienting our grid infrastructure around central thermal generation.

The rate of change might seem slow at first, but at some point in the process the tilt in the playing field will begin to favor renewable technologies in a different way.

The electrical generation/transmission/distribution system itself will start to be oriented around the technologies were favored under the C&T programs instead of around central thermal generation.

That shift in orientation is the primary goal of C&T.

When it occurs the fossil plants will start shutting down in large numbers.

As I wrote in my last post, the cap and trade system is one the the easiest to implement and police. It doesn't require an army of field regulators or inspectors. Everything except the evaluation of technologies applying to earn carbon credits can be monitored via accounting audits.

As for the technologies applying for status as producers deserving of carbon credit, it doesn't require vast resources for the evaluations.

This is the area where there is potential for fraud and abuse. It is pretty much inevitable that some not-so-green programs will get money they don't deserve. To me that isn't a large problem, however, IF there is open public access to the determinations of who qualifies. That allows independent verification and challenge by NGOs.

Trust me, I and many others will be looking for people working to scam the system.

The House energy bill establishes a review panel for techs looking for carbon credit status. That panel can be held accountable if their work is public.

[hunter]

33. It's a giveaway to the coal industry.

A straight carbon tax is the easiest thing in the world to audit. That's why we won't have it.

Tax fossil fuels just as cigarettes are taxed, with the straightforward intention of reducing use.

It doesn't even matter much where the money goes. A ton of tax on a ton of carbon, oil, or natural gas, and people will conserve or switch to alternatives.

The first round of taxation might be used to subsidize public transportation and the upgrading of lower income housing to greatly reduce or eliminate utility expenses.

[kristopher]

35. A straight tax is right up there with nationalizing the coal industry

While I like the simplicity of a straight tax, I prefer something that will work. If you can't get it passed, a policy has ZERO (0) chance of success no matter how elegantly simple it is. Your incessant calls for unworkable solutions amount to a full throated endorsement of business as usual, which is obviously the outcome you desire.

[hunter]

37. If you prefer something that will "work" why would you support this?

There are plenty of environmentalists and big business types who are pointing out the same flaws.

As for the coal industry:

”We look forward to working with the U.S. Senate and other stakeholders during the coming months to make additional, vital modifications to H.R. 2998 so the legislation ultimately adopted by Congress and signed by the President ensures greater energy independence, produces environmental benefits, and promotes economic prosperity for millions of Americans.”

-- The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, June 26, 2009

[kristopher]

38. You have zero credibility left.

[hunter]

39. Kristopher, what's this bill to you?

I think this is a garbage piece of legislation. I could be wrong about it (Now that would be nice!) but all I really see it accomplishing is putting off effective legislation for another day. The very moment it starts to squeeze big coal it will be gutted, and any alternative energy schemes that have grown to depend on it will whither away.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you are involved in this legislation, you are a clean coal person, or you hope to get some of the tiny scraps the coal industry throws the starving alternative energy dogs whimpering under the table.

I hope you don't think I have "zero credibility left" because my coal industry quote mentions H.R. 2998, not 2454, because in that case you were not paying attention to the legislation you are defending.

As this thing passes through the Senate it will be covered further with the dirty fingerprints of the coal industry.

I know making legislation is like making sausages, but this is a sausage I don't care to eat.

[kristopher]

40. "my coal industry quote..."

Another demonstration of how you prefer ignorance to knowledge. 2454 is a precursor bill to 2998, same basic thing different at a slightly stage of development. I have the 2454 version on my drive.

So, yes I'm paying attention. I'm not particularly "defending" the legislation. I'm defending the facts against total ignorance and bullshit, baseless criticism based on such ignorance.

You have been wrong about every single thing you've said regarding the legislation, so it is no surprise that your criticisms in your last post are equally ill founded. You are WORKING to DERAIL one of the most important pieces of Democratic environmental legislation in the past 30 years. Your attitudes and opinions precisely track those of a troll who pays lip service to concern about carbon in an effort to gain credibility when you inevitably criticize efforts to take real, meaningful action.

[hunter]

42. I'm not working to DERAIL it. I can sit back and watch it crash and burn on its own.

But honestly, "one of the most important pieces of Democratic environmental legislation in the past 30 years???" That seems a bit of hyperbole, especially if the bill forces California to accept more coal generated electricity by further grid interconnection in an east west direction, "harmony" with federal auto emission standards, and the exemption of greenhouse gasses from clean air standards.

Most of all, I can't get past this:

"....to ensure a continuing place for coal in our nation’s energy future..."

If it said "nuclear power" instead of coal maybe you'd notice.

[excess_3]

28. 'cap and trade' is a windfall for electric power, a regulated industry

I am assuming that the US version will be similiar
to the start of the EU version.

electric power will be given 95% of there emissions are free allowances.
the pubic utility commisons change rates so consumers pay the full amount.
on EVERY kilowatt, not just the last 5%.

EP pockets the value of the allowances
minus bribes, of course.

.

[kristopher]

32. Since you are making up numbers

why not make up the page number where we can verify this claim of 95%?

That would be House Bill 2454 in case you want to google it.

[excess_3]

41. I give up, how much carbon allowance do they get? n/t

[kristopher]

11. Speaking of tools...

Another complaint with no substance.

[hunter]

14. Carbon trading -- a tool with no substance.

:hi:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Howzit]

9. Here Boxer is showing us how to do it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFWRRaTL5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8&feature=related

[kristopher]

13. Besides the local examples on this thread

here is another example of the type of anti-Democrat motivated bullshit that is the subject of the OP:

"Barack Obama called for House passage of the cap and trade tax bill last Friday by calling it a jobs bill. The bill is designed to raise the price of energy in the U.S. so much that it will reduce the use of fossil fuels by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050. Sentencing the U.S. economy to high cost energy is not a particularly good strategy for creating jobs. The Charles River Associates, a Harvard based economics consulting firm, estimates a net loss of jobs from the bill of about 2.5 million each year.

This is surely a gross underestimate of the net job losses from a bill designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels to the level in 1907. All those soccer moms better get used to riding their horses to the grocery store and back. And their husbands better get used to working the farms again, by hand, as high cost energy will chase remaining American manufacturing out of the country to India and China, which do not suffer from Al Gore's delusions about supposed global warming. ..."

From that bastion of knowledge and Republicanism, "The American Spectator"
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/01/cap-and-trade-dementia

[excess_3]

27. environmental laws ceate jobs, look at UAW's membership

1.5 million in 1969

472 thousand in 2010

[diane in sf]

34. your analogy is almost too ignorant to reply to.

[defendandprotect]

36. Kick -- we need more than 24 hours to rec a thread . . .!!!