Climate Change Confabs

Carbon limits, technological breakthroughs, or both?

Ronald Bailey | September 26, 2007

Climate change is at the top of the international agenda this week. On Monday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon convened a one-day summit of 150 nations in New York on the issue. The U.N. conference was attended by more than 80 heads of state and government, making it the largest meeting ever of world leaders on climate change. Ban told the conferees, "The message is quite simple. We know enough to act. If we don't act now, the impact of climate change will be devastating."

On Thursday and Friday, President George W. Bush will convene a meeting in Washington of representatives from the sixteen countries that emit the most greenhouse gases, including large developing countries like China, India, and Brazil, to discuss steps to address climate change. This is potentially significant because developing countries have no current obligations under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Both meetings aim to influence the agenda for the climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia this coming December at the thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-13) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The negotiations at the COP-13 are about what, if any, new international regulatory scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which lapses in 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol, 36 industrial nation signatories committed to cutting their GHG emissions by an average of five percent below the level they emitted in 1990. The United States and Australia refused to sign onto the treaty.

How are the Kyoto signatories—chiefly the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada—doing at meeting their emissions targets? Emissions from the EU-15 have dropped by 1.5 percent since 1990, which is still well above their agreed target reduction of 8 percent below what they emitted in 1990. A report last year from the European Environment Agency projected that the EU-15 would not likely reach their 2012 Kyoto Protocol emissions target unless they adopt more stringent policies. Nevertheless, the EU jauntily declared that it would cut its GHG emissions by 20 percent below its 1990 level by 2020.

Canada committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 6 percent below its 1990 level, but as of 2004, Canada emitted 27 percent more GHG than it did in 1990. Japan is supposed to cut its GHG emissions by 6 percent, but recent projections suggest that it may emit 2 percent more than it did in 1990. For comparison, U.S. GHG emissions are up over 16 percent of what they were in 1990.

At the U.N. meeting on Monday, the EU, Canada, and Japan all came out in favor of a binding target of cutting GHG emissions by 50 percent below their 1990 levels by 2050. The Bush Administration is against binding reductions targets, preferring to focus on research to develop clean energy technologies that do not emit GHGs—e.g., nuclear, wind, solar and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration means burying carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels by injecting it into underground reservoirs. At the U.N. climate confab, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice declared, "Ultimately, we must develop and bring to market new energy technologies that transcend the current system of fossil fuels, carbon emissions and economic activity. Put simply, the world needs a technological revolution."

But how to spark an energy tech revolution? If replacing fossil fuels was easy and cheap to do, then clever inventors would already have done it. The fact is that while the costs of alternative energy sources have been falling they remain more expensive and cumbersome than fossil fuels for most uses. In addition, federal government spending on energy research and demonstration projects does not have a great track record. Consider the case of the North Dakota synfuels plant, built in response to the oil "crises" of the 1970s and backed by federal loan guarantees. The plant was once the largest construction project in the U.S. and cost $2.1 billion ($4.1 billion in today's dollars) to build. In 1984, the price of natural gas plummeted and the plant went into bankruptcy. It was sold in 1988 to a local electric cooperative for $85 million; a little over 4 cents on the dollar. That $2.1 billion would have grown to about $6.5 billion at 5 percent compounded interest since 1984.

Relying on the wisdom of federal bureaucrats to pick the right research projects as a way to jumpstart an energy revolution is a chancy strategy. The fact that carbon-emitting fuels are so cheap that it doesn't pay for researchers to develop low carbon energy sources suggests a solution—make carbon more expensive. There are two ways to do this: either create a carbon market or impose a carbon tax. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages, but by making fossil fuels more expensive, researchers would have a strong incentive to find and commercialize low carbon technology breakthroughs.

At the U.N. summit on Monday, Secretary-General Ban declared, "The scientists have very clearly outlined the severity of the problem." Certainly the evidence that man-made climate change is happening continues to mount. Last week, researchers reported that the fabled Northwest Passage opened as Arctic sea ice reached a new summer low. One of the predicted effects of man-made climate change is that as GHGs accumulate, the atmosphere will warm, which in turn means that it holds more water vapor and, as the primary GHG, adds to warming in a positive feedback effect that further boosts temperatures. A new study in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that since 1988, water vapor has increased in the atmosphere and concludes that the increase is "primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases."

Although a consensus about man-made global warming has emerged, science is rarely completely settled. Climate researchers, especially climate modelers, are digesting the results of several intriguing new empirical studies. First, a study soon to appear in the Geophysical Research Letters by Stephen Schwartz, a senior atmospheric scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, suggests that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in an average global temperature rise of 1.1 degrees Celsius (plus or minus 0.5 degrees Celsius). This is considerably lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius. Of course, proponents of dangerous climate change are challenging Schwartz's results.

Second, in August a team led by Scripps Institute for Oceanography Center for Clouds researcher Veerabhadran Ramanathan reported in the journal Nature that soot may boost global warming by 50 percent, at least on a regional basis. The study suggests that atmospheric heating caused by greenhouse gases and soot together is responsible for the melting of Himalayan glaciers over the past half century. Soot may also explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases, according to a study published last June in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

And third, MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen proposed in 2001 that the earth might have what he called an "adaptive infrared iris" operating over the tropical oceans. Lindzen's team suggested that they had preliminary evidence that as GHGs accumulated and boosted the temperature of the tropical oceans that a negative feedback would kick in to lower temperatures. To make a long story short, Lindzen's team believed they had found evidence that as the tropical atmosphere warms up, high-altitude ice clouds that tend to trap heat dissipated and allowed heat to escape into space. At the same time, low level rain clouds that cool temperatures by reflecting sunlight increased. Thus, the earth has a self-regulating thermostat that prevents significant temperature increases due to accumulating GHGs. Other researchers questioned Lindzen's results, arguing that they could find no evidence that tropical clouds behaved the way Lindzen hypothesized.

A study in Geophysical Research Letters published in August by researchers at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory using satellite data found evidence that Lindzen might be right. Tropical clouds may act in such a way as to cool down the planet.

The balance of the scientific evidence is that humanity is increasing the earth's temperature by loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, especially with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. But clearly more scientific research and debate needs to be done to figure out if the new findings cited above will pan out and will necessitate incorporation into computer climate models. After all, the results of those models are now driving public policy discussions at the U.N., Washington, and, later this year, Bali.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.

Comments

ed|9.26.07 @ 12:35PM|#

clearly more scientific research and debate needs to be done to figure out if the new findings cited above will pan out and will necessitate incorporation into computer climate models.

Wrong! The science is "settled". Only a "denier" will dare to disagree with me.

\"Denier\"|9.26.07 @ 12:36PM|#

I DISAGREE!!!!









um. what are we talking about, again?

Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 12:38PM|#

If replacing fossil fuels was easy and cheap to do, then clever inventors would already have done it.

I would note that we have seen dramatic shifts in fuel usage as far as power generation is concerned over the past couple of decades, mainly away from coal and oil and toward very "clean" natural gas. This is still a fossil fuel obviously, but it is the case that we power our homes, etc. generally quite differently than we did in the 1960s and 1970s.

|9.26.07 @ 12:49PM|#

So a scientist produces a model that is not what alarmist believe and he's attacked?Everyone should understand that what you put in relates directly to your results.I've always been a skeptic[on both sides] due to the reliance on computer models.There are too many variables,many unknown,we can't factor everything in.Making policy on predictions that my be wildly off the mark is,well,just silly.

Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Yes, the elitists of the world are finally catching up with me on the use of organic hydrogen: fuel of the future, formed in the past.

G.R.L. Cowan, boron internal c|9.26.07 @ 1:16PM|#

"... by making fossil fuels more expensive, researchers would have a strong incentive to find and commercialize low carbon technology breakthroughs".

Perhaps, but if, when carbon is made expensive for those who burn it, it is made lucrative for those who make the rules, they will have a strong incentive to suppress those breakthroughs.

For instance, if researchers discover that limiting speeds on public highways increases throughput and saves fuel, rule-makers who take a guaranteed profit on the carbon in that fuel would have a strong incentive to conspicuously fail to enforce statutory speed limits.

K.|9.26.07 @ 1:22PM|#

If replacing fossil fuels was easy and cheap to do, then clever inventors would already have done it.

In a perfect market, sure. But this market "externalizes" many of the real costs of fossil fuels, making them even more competitive. Not to mention all the gov't subsidies to oil that were granted back when oil was at $20/barrel and that are still active.

ed|9.26.07 @ 1:34PM|#

um. what are we talking about, again?

How we poor stupid humans will be unable to deal with an alleged catastrophe that's a century in the future. Because we don't have volition and are therefore incapable of dealing with both adversity and opportunity.

K.|9.26.07 @ 2:22PM|#

catastrophe that's a century in the future

It's long-term and it's gradual, but it's not a century in the future. It's happening right now (more droughts, heat waves, stronger hurricanes, etc) and will progressively get worse.

Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Not to mention all the gov't subsidies to oil that were granted back when oil was at $20/barrel and that are still active.

Which ones are those? Can you actually show any payment to an oil company from the government? Can you show that they exist beyond the misuse of the term by reporters?

There are plenty of incentive programs out there for all sorts of things, but I have not seen a true US federal subsidy to an oil company for oil.

No, I do not count the Clinton administration miscalculating leases on the low side, nor do I count leases in this 'subsidy' business.

|9.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Let's replace the income tax with a tax on carbon emissions.

Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Let's replace the income tax with a tax on carbon emissions.

My organic hydrogen is already over-taxed enough, thank you. How about you just byuy some of the extra carbon credits I have from my no-emmissions condo?

|9.26.07 @ 2:51PM|#

No thanks, Guy.

One of the big problems with the income tax is that it discourages economic activity, if we want to discourage things that we don't want rather than things we want, if we want industry in particular and society in general to transition to an economy with less carbon emissions as efficiently as possible, then the most effective and efficient solution is to replace the income tax with a tax on carbon emissions.

From a libertarian perspective, even, if the government should be able to tax for anything, it should be for pollution.

Greens should be behind a big tax on carbon emissions. Supply Siders should be behind the elimination of the income tax. ...and it would have the effects we're looking for--encourage innovation, reward carbon neutral activity, etc.

|9.26.07 @ 2:54PM|#

"The negotiations at the COP-13 are about what, if any, new international regulatory scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions."

I'm sorry but I thought this was about a centrally planned energy scam by socialist elitists. Whew, I'm glad this is about science and not that.

|9.26.07 @ 3:08PM|#

"... by making fossil fuels labor more expensive, researchers managers would have a strong incentive to find and commercialize low carbon automated manufacturing technology breakthroughs".

Sorry- I couldn't help myself.

Scop|9.26.07 @ 3:32PM|#

I'd just like to point out that "organic hydrogen" is impossible.

|9.26.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Nuclear Fission. Let's do it. Nothing else is CO2 free and capable of supplying our electrical needs. I'm pleading here!

Yeah, I said needs. The United States did not "conserve" ourselves to greatness.

Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#

From a libertarian perspective, even, if the government should be able to tax for anything, it should be for pollution.

Excuse me, I am feeding plants, not polluting.

Scop, so just what do YOU call C8H18?

|9.26.07 @ 4:37PM|#

Nuclear Energy, ftw.

Seriously, deregulate the industry so people can make money producing electricity and our energy problems will vanish.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|9.26.07 @ 4:46PM|#

Seriously, deregulate the industry so people can make money producing electricity and our energy problems will vanish.

EXACTLY. I own a decent-sized chunk of property on a hilltop and I could easily put up 1 or 2 large windmills. But PA law allows the distribution companies to force me to divert my power and not buy it, so it's not profitable for me.

Make it so that people can sell excess power back into the grid everywhere and our power problems are gone.

Mark Bahner|9.26.07 @ 5:13PM|#

Nuclear Fission. Let's do it.

Nuclear fusion. Let's try that. (But only as a series of technology prizes, totalling no more than a couple billion dollars...and while simultaneously stopping funding for the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor, and diverting that money to technology prizes.)

Nuclear fusion has the following huge advantages over nuclear fission:

1) No long-lived radioactive materials.

2) If targeted by terrorists, the working part of the plant could simply be disabled (e.g., by simply smashing the key parts). There is no "core" containing significant long-lived radioactive materials.

3) No problem with siting plants near--or even inside--major cities, because there is no danger of significant radioactive release.

4) Is much more compatible with a distributed electrical grid...no need for vast, interstate transfers of electricity.

5) Means that electrical grids could get up far sooner in the event of hurricanes, ice or snow storms, etc.

6) Fusion rockets (and local fusion power) are the only realistic way humans will ever have a significant presence on the Moon, Mars, or Jupiter's moons.

Six reasons why hydrogen-boron fusion is the ultimate energy source

|9.26.07 @ 5:13PM|#

"Nuclear Fission. Let's do it. Nothing else is CO2 free and capable of supplying our electrical needs. "

wrong. Please do your own homework.

|9.26.07 @ 5:21PM|#

wrong. Please do your own homework.

Please, oh wise one, tell me of the limitless sources of energy I have somehow remained unaware of.

IOW, put up or shut up.

|9.26.07 @ 5:23PM|#

I'd better duck, I sense hostility incoming. ;-)

|9.26.07 @ 5:32PM|#

Nuclear fusion. Let's try that.

As soon as it's demonstrated you'll be unable to keep me off the bandwagon. Skeptics can change their minds when presented with proof.

Scop|9.26.07 @ 5:36PM|#

Simply beautiful weather in New York and London for the past several weeks. Beautiful!

Whatever "climate change" may have caused this, please let it continue.

If my two (count them, 2!) SUVs are the cause, then I will gladly buy yet another, to do my part in making weather wonderful!

PS: I love DDT, too.

Mark Bahner|9.26.07 @ 7:13PM|#

Nuclear fusion. Let's try that.

As soon as it's demonstrated you'll be unable to keep me off the bandwagon. Skeptics can change their minds when presented with proof.

1) There is proof beyond any doubt that dense plasma focus devices produce fusion (demonstrated by emission of neutrons). There are such devices set up all over the world, e.g., Chile:

Dense plasma focus devices in Chile

2) Pyroelectric fusion has been demonstrated (again, production of neutrons) by UCLA and Rennselear Polytechnic Institute

UCLA results, as reported in Nature

3) The Farnsworth Fusor is so old, it was demonstrated when my family still had black and white television:

Farnsworth Fusor

4) Sonofusion isn't absolutely proven, but more than one investigation has indicated fusion seems to be occurring:

Sonofusion

So...what more evidence do you need?

bill|9.26.07 @ 7:43PM|#

I say "Hurray for Global Warming". This planet could use about 5 billion less human beings.

|9.26.07 @ 8:05PM|#

So...what more evidence do you need?

I dunno, maybe a reactor that outputs more energy than it consumes. I readily concede that controlled hydrogen to helium fusion is possible. I just don't think we should base an energy policy on what maybe, might, we hope, will happen in the future. This skeptic wants a working reactor. Then I'd expect to be an advocate.

Mark Bahner|9.26.07 @ 9:13PM|#

So...what more evidence do you need?

I dunno, maybe a reactor that outputs more energy than it consumes.

That's a little like someone in 1943 saying, "I'll support the Manhattan Project when I see that the test at Trinity works."

This skeptic wants a working reactor.

And how much would you be willing to pay for such a reactor?

If your answer is, "Nothing"...well, welcome to the worldwide club of people who want something for nothing.

On the other hand, if you think it would be worth the federal government spending a couple billion dollars...but ONLY if at least one working reactor comes out of it, well, then you should support technology prizes for fusion.

With technology prizes, if one or more working reactors can't be built, the several billion dollars doesn't get spent. (With the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor, over $10 billion will be spent, and a practical reactor probably still won't come from it...or if it does, it will after 15 years or so.)

|9.26.07 @ 10:12PM|#

On the other hand, if you think it would be worth the federal government spending a couple billion dollars...but ONLY if at least one working reactor comes out of it, well, then you should support technology prizes for fusion.

It'd be an improvement over the way we fund physics research now, I'll grant. Heck, I'd probably bend my libertarian principles and support it .The question, though, is what can we build NOW that will supply our energy needs without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. That's fission reactors.

For those global warnig skeptics, I have plenty of other reasons to go with fission over fossil fuels for power generation. I'm sure they'll come up in appropriate threads.

Mark Bahner|9.26.07 @ 10:26PM|#

The question, though, is what can we build NOW that will supply our energy needs without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. That's fission reactors.

We simply can't build enough fission reactors to have any significant effect on global climate.

The U.S. emits only 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases...AT PRESENT. And only ~10 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from U.S. electrical generation.

So even if we replace ALL our electrical generation with fission reactors in less than a decade (clearly impossible, both politically and economically) the change in world temperature in a century would be less approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius.

To truly make a significant difference globally, a technology will have to be developed that the entire world wants...because it's better (less expensive and less polluting).

There are only a few technologies that possibly qualify.

|9.27.07 @ 1:47AM|#

I'm all about solving problems with technology--really I am. ...but I don't get the let's pick the technology that's gonna do it debate.

Ultimately the answer, or answers, will involve a lot of different solutions. If we want those solutions to come sooner rather than later, and if we want them to be implemented as efficiently as possible, we should concentrate on doing what we can to encourage innovation across the whole spectrum of our economy. ...and there's a way to do that. ...and it doesn't involve any new innovations, just the application of some very old and well tested principles.

Mike Laursen|9.27.07 @ 1:54AM|#

... if we want to discourage things that we don't want rather than things we want...

The problem with using taxes to discourage a social evil is that the taxes become a revenue source for the government, leading to a countervailing incentive to not discourage that social evil too much. Notice how cigarette taxes haven't stopped people from smoking.

Mike Laursen|9.27.07 @ 2:02AM|#

It's encouraging to hear that researchers at places like Scripps and MIT are pushing toward a more sophisticated understanding of climate change. I'm not an anthropogenic climate change denier, but I hate hearing people saying that the science is settled just as much as they do. The science should never be settled about anything!

Jennifer Schulz|9.27.07 @ 2:16AM|#

Hear, hear. I just don't have faith in those world domination freaks.

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, try to take over the world!

Any forced taxation is too much. There are other things governments can do to encourage innovation instead of adding new restrictions. Only the market has provided us with quick innovation. Currently there are too many special interests poking their noses in, and politicians who love to "pretend" to solve an issue when in fact they allow the oil industry a seat at the closed session.

|9.27.07 @ 2:19AM|#

J and D wrote:
"wrong. Please do your own homework.

Please, oh wise one, tell me of the limitless sources of energy I have somehow remained unaware of.

IOW, put up or shut up."

Um when you try to support your claim of, "Nothing else is CO2 free and capable of supplying our electrical needs. " , I will support mine in reply. =)

Actually I have in the past posted such links; the real reason I did not do so earlier was because I had to leave for work.

"I'd better duck, I sense hostility incoming. ;-)"

No ducking needed, but it would be nice if you supported your claim.

I will concede that biofuels/alternative private powered auto-transportation will be a big hurdle...perhaps insurmountable. But since we were discussing grid power, Nuclear power does have the potential of completely replacing Coal and Natural Gas for a very long time. I just don't like it's centralized structure, same goes for Fusion.

|9.27.07 @ 7:38AM|#

Here are some of the most noteworthy statements of Ms. Witherspoon ("who was the executive officer of the California Air Resources Board until she resigned after a row with the staff of governor Schwarzenegger about climate change policy."):

"We need some more accidents and catastrophes to hit Americans upside the head, so that they also feel threatened. (...) The problem is the media: they believe in point and counterpoint. So while there are a million people who will tell you it is climate-related, they will find the one guy, the kooky guy with the white hair, who says that it is not, that it is a farce, that the climate changed since the dinosaurs and this is just another example. So Americans are misled. Americans are inherently sceptical of intellectuals, of scientists, of elitists, of governments. If there is someone to cast doubt, they will believe the person casting doubt. That's just the way Americans are, that's their personality. (...)
There are a lot of things that we understand to be true about climate change that we don't talk about. Because it's too early in the process and it would alienate the people. We need to support the big building blocks: the building of windmills, the changing of fuel quality and cars... If you want the US citizens to take climate change seriously and you say in the same breath: and would you please stop eating meat (...) you would turn people off. (...) It sounds too much like a nanny state, a police state coming from us. But NGOs, novelists, editorial writers can talk about it and change people without stopping momentum toward big governmental actions. ...)
I think we could regulate people more, I honestly do. (...) Americans understand SUVs are a bad thing, but they are right there, so they will buy them. If they went away, they would not buy them. (...) If bottled water disappeared, you would fill up a tap, you would find something else to drink. (...) There is a lot of things you can do with regulation by just taking things away: they're gone, and everybody gets on with their lives."

Ms. Chicken Little proposes saving the earth, so to speak, and further inflating her ego, by banning bottled water. It's a sound plan that won't hurt anybody who counts, so there's no reason to be concerned about the absence of catastrophes, which, by the way, will occur if you keep buying bottled water and driving SUVs. Pretty soon. Any day now. Trust me.

|9.27.07 @ 8:46AM|#

We have lost decades of lead time, so much so that whatever we do ends up paling in the face of the emissions growth from China and India.

But we still need to start innovating, and not merely in new energy sources like fusion ("Mark Bahner" technology prizes will certainly get us the greatest bang for the buck, but we all know that Congresscritters prefer to dispense real pork), but carbon capture, sequestration, building conservation etc. The Chinese will also want to take advantage of these innovations - purely to satisfy their own needs for energy and to protect their own environment.

The best way to do this is by market signals via either taxes or cap and trade - and the greater the government is "hands on" the greater amount of time and money will be wasted in the face of a real problem.

Unfortunately, there is real irony in the fact that the "conservatives" who encouraged dawdling on climate change will soon be turning over the reins of power - both the presidency and Congress - to a party that has an even better long-term record of favoring big government and pork, and when called on it can simply point to Republicans own big-government profligacy (including the trillion wasted in Iraq). Thanks, guys.

Ron, where is your concern/strategy about how to encourage better governance in the countries that will be hardest hit by climate change? This is a huge problem that Lomborg and others profess concern about - but never seem to get around to taking up the messy task of proposing solutions. In this context, we should not forget that taking our foot off the gas of our own demand for fossil fuels is an implicit subsidy to developing economies, who can then purchase them at a relatively reduced market price.

|9.27.07 @ 10:38AM|#

"The problem with using taxes to discourage a social evil is that the taxes become a revenue source for the government, leading to a countervailing incentive to not discourage that social evil too much."

I appreciate that. ...we even see that principle, to some extent, in income taxes--the government doesn't want to crush economic activity entirely, which is why marginal tax rates aren't as high as they could be.

I would also argue, however, that if carbon emissions really are as big a problem as some suggest, then whatever solutions the government imposes are likely to be devastating to our economy. ...if their solutions are of a scale big enough to actually have an impact on the problem, that is.

Rather than government imposed solutions, I'd prefer to tax carbon emissions and let everyone choose to solve that problem in their own way--from utility companies and refiners to people who use gasoline and heating oil included--but also, because of the economic impact, I think it's important to eliminate the income tax at the same time. That's why I pointed out that the income tax discourages economic activity.

If there's going to be a big economic impact, let's make it less expensive for companies to employ more people at the same salaries. If people are going to pay more for gasoline and heating oil and food that travels by truck, let's let them keep more of their money! That's all I'm trying to say.

As a die hard, anti-New Deal, old school libertarian, I'd rather tax carbon emissions than income even if global warming was a bunch of hooey! What if we could get the greens to help us eliminate the income tax?! What if this is a big enough deal to them that we could strike a grand bargain?

|9.27.07 @ 10:45AM|#

I've been getting altruistic with non-believers all my life. "If you really care about the poor, eliminate the income tax!" I'd say. ...not much fertile soil for that argument--even if it is true.

But I'd relish the opportunity to hit the greens out there with some altruism. "Don't you people care about the environment at all?!", I'd say.

Mike Laursen|9.27.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Well, when you put it that way, I'd rather have a carbon tax than an income tax, too. My biggest beef against the income tax is that it is so terribly intrusive.

At least they aren't taxing thingee. Yet.

Guy Montag|9.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#

The problem with using taxes as a club is that you are distorting the "free market".

I have yet to see a true Libertarian argument that advocated the use of taxes as a social engineering tool.

Now for National Socialists, on the other hand, it is close to tool #1 in the box.

|9.27.07 @ 2:07PM|#

I'm not using it as a social engineering tool.

I'm using it to pay bills people haven't been paying.

Adam Smith talked about how one of the places where the government should get involved is in situations like when you walk out of your front door, and while on the walkway on your property, before you hit the street, a cinder from your neighbor's chimney lands on your newly cleaned, white shirt. So, Adam Smith asked, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Who should pay the bill?"

That's a legitimate question that the government should answer. There's no clear libertarian answer.

...but I would say that if we assume that CO2 emissions really are affecting the environment that we're all living in, that it's the people who are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere that should have to shoulder the costs of that.

That ain't social engineering.

Now I take the likely effects of things into consideration, and taxing carbon emissions rather than income is likely to have certain effects. ...a much better outcome than some of the other proposals I've seen on the table. ...but that doesn't make it social engineering.

|9.27.07 @ 4:32PM|#

"The problem with using taxes as a club is that you are distorting the "free market"."

Our 'Free Market' is about as staight and undistorted as a Tuba. It plays...but it ain't undistorted. Carbon Taxes are relatively straighter and less distorting than most other means being proposed to account for Anthropogenic CO2's externalities. Since we will be eventualy paying for our CO2 waste in one form or another, pick the straightest most economical means.

|9.27.07 @ 4:55PM|#

p.s.
I generally do not advocate starting with a Carbon Tax. I would first start by ending all corporate welfare/protectionism, especially for Fossil Fuels, followed by agriculture. Then require that all government activity be carbon-neutral; made to happen by either reducaing actual CO2 to near zero or by buying certified carbon credits of the highest quality. These two complement each other very well, and the first frees up funding for the second. Before resorting to Carbon Tax on our own people, I would put a Carbon Tarrif on all imports and incoming other transit not shown to be certifiably carbon neutral. Since that would directly affect the livelyhood of citizens, it is this tarrif on imports which needs to have an accompanying reduction in income taxes (and others) elsewhere.

All the above can be softened by intoducing it over a 20 year period at 5% increments.

Only after further climate studies have shown that a Carbon Tax on our own people is really needed then we should go with the tax...with further reductions in other taxes too.

Climate science should be better supported. Launch that GoreSat already.

Mark Bahner|9.27.07 @ 5:22PM|#

I'm all about solving problems with technology--really I am. ...but I don't get the let's pick the technology that's gonna do it debate.

It's quite simple, really. Create a list of the characteristics of an ideal energy system:

1) Low air pollution (including greenhouse gases),
2) Low water pollution,
3) Low pollution from extraction of the fuel,
4) Fuel supply is at least at least several hundred years of worldwide annual consumption (worldwide annual energy consumption is about 400 quadrillion Btu),
5) Fuel supply is not dependent on unstable and/or undemocratic countries,
6) No long-lived wastes,
7) The energy produced is not intermittent (not dependent on the sun shining or the wind blowing),
8) Is not diffuse, but instead is very concentrated (e.g., could power a whole neighborhood or small city with a plant the size of a 3-car garage),
9) Is not intrusive, so that noise, smell, or visual effects will disturb the neighbors,
10) Does not need to be protected from terrorists,

etc.

If you make such a list of the characteristics of an ideal energy system, fusion (particularly hydrogen-boron fusion) would rank at or near the top for every one of those considerations.

Ultimately the answer, or answers, will involve a lot of different solutions.

That's not necessarily true. If hydrogen-boron fusion could be developed such that it could produce electricity for less money that now is paid for electricity from the lowest-cost sources (e.g. hydro and coal), then the human race could switch to hydrogen-boron fusion, and there would be no need for any other source of energy. (Even cars could be powered by plug-in hybrids, with the non-battery fuel source being hydrogen generated locally by electrolysis. That is, "gasoline" stations could be converted to electrolysis-and-hydrogen-storage stations.) It is at least theoretically possible that hydrogen-boron fusion could produce electricity for less money than the lowest-cost present sources. This is because fuel costs are very low, and equipment and land usage are much smaller per unit of energy generated (especially compared to wind, for example).

But the beauty of technology prizes is that they can be designed such that if the promise of fusion is not met, the government owes nothing (or very little). For example, the government can say, "We will give $500 million each to the first 4 different designs of fusion device that can produce at least 1 kilowatt more than you put into it for one year." Now, if no one can do that, the government owes nothing. And the maximum the government will owe would be $2 billion…for 4 different designs that can produce one kW over breakeven for a year. That would be a spectacular advance in fusion technology, since no fusion device has yet conclusively generated power above breakeven.

|9.27.07 @ 5:32PM|#

The problem with using taxes as a club is that you are distorting the "free market".

I have yet to see a true Libertarian argument that advocated the use of taxes as a social engineering tool.

Now for National Socialists, on the other hand, it is close to tool #1 in the box.

Well actually the national socialists would simply outlaw stuff....the tax and let the market work is not libertarian pure but it is better then command and control....now lets start talking about OK we can take a gas tax...so long as we get a corresponding income and capital gains tax cut.

|9.27.07 @ 5:36PM|#

One of the great things about a gas tax replacing income and capital gains taxes is that over time the amount the government collects with a gas tax compared to GDP shrinks.

Mark Bahner|9.27.07 @ 6:36PM|#

But we still need to start innovating, and not merely in new energy sources like fusion...

No, that's the beauty of fusion...there is nothing stopping fusion from supplying essentially all of human energy needs infinitely far into the future. Virtually no other energy technology can make that claim.

For example, photovoltaics can theoretically supply all of mankind's energy needs...but only if there is an energy delivery or storage system that moves the electricity from areas at night to areas in daylight. And only if the energy is collected and sent to very-high-usage areas like NYC (because there could never be photovoltaics WITHIN NYC that supply all NYC's needs).

Fusion is the ultimate energy source. (Well, there is matter-antimatter energy generation, but let's not get ridiculous with respect to current technology.)

("Mark Bahner" technology prizes will certainly get us the greatest bang for the buck, but we all know that Congresscritters prefer to dispense real pork)

Yes, they prefer to dispense real pork...but if we (The People) can get at least a few experts to testify to Congress that technology prizes (especially for fusion, but possibly also for photovoltaics) should be given a chance, at least it would get on the "radar screen" of the popular press.

For example, suppose (Fed chief) Ben Bernanke was asked about energy prices, and made a remark like, "You know, I've always thought technology prizes for developing fusion might be worth considering..."?

Suddenly, everyone (e.g. the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, etc.) would be saying, "Technology prizes for fusion?! What does that mean? Would it work?"

Bingo, everyone would be thinking about fusion. Right now, essentially NO ONE is thinking about fusion. I'll bet there are fewer than 2000 scientists and engineers in the U.S. who work *predominantly* on fusion...out of a U.S. population of 300 million.

In contrast, as I recall from a History Channel TV show, during the Apollo program, there were 250,000 scientists and engineers working for NASA and its contractors. All to get to a barren, lifeless piece of rock.

Mark Bahner|9.27.07 @ 6:49PM|#

P.S. Honesty compels me to admit that I think there is one very significant problem with controlled fusion. I think that SOMEONE will figure out how to use controlled fusion to make a bomb.

The commercialization of fusion would bring the cost of producing controlled fusion literally down to the price where small groups of people, or even individuals, could purchase the devices.

For example, the absolute maximum capital cost for a fusion device that would be competitive with other electrical generation sources has been estimated at $6000 per kilowatt. Therefore, just about anyone in the U.S. would be able to buy a 1 kilowatt generator. So eventually there would likely be literally millions of them available worldwide.

And all that would be necessary to turn them into fusion bombs would be a way to get several kilograms to fuse in a fraction of a second, rather than milligrams or micrograms per second.

|9.27.07 @ 7:26PM|#

"One of the great things about a gas tax replacing income and capital gains taxes is that over time the amount the government collects with a gas tax compared to GDP shrinks."

Absolutely. ...there's always a risk that they'll raise the tax on carbons as the level shrinks, but then there's some hope that they might cut spending too.

I'd also add as an argument for any hawks and neocons out there that from a practical standpoint, this is probably the most efficient and speedy way for us to wean ourselves away from supporting, directly or indirectly, some of the world's most vicious dictators, who, for whatever reason, seem to show up wherever there's oil.

Guy Montag|9.27.07 @ 9:52PM|#

ROFLMAO!!!!

I'm not using it as a social engineering tool.

'No, I am just forcing people to do what I want to with them.'

Guy Montag|9.27.07 @ 9:55PM|#

Our 'Free Market' is about as staight and undistorted as a Tuba. It plays...

'and I will use carbon taxes to distort it more'

Has Ezra Klein invaded under multiple user names?

|9.27.07 @ 10:52PM|#

"No, I am just forcing people to do what I want to with them."

I honestly don't get it.

If getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with something else is "social engineering"...

Is there any way we could replace the income tax with something else and it not be "social engineering"?

|9.27.07 @ 10:53PM|#

Maybe you're trying to suggest that we shouldn't consider the likely results of public policy before we...

Honestly, I don't get it.

|9.28.07 @ 5:13AM|#

"Our 'Free Market' is about as staight and undistorted as a Tuba. It plays...

'and I will use carbon taxes to distort it more'

Has Ezra Klein invaded under multiple user names?"

I am not sure what you are getting at...not sure who Ezra Klein even is...the Wiki entry is kinda vague.

Are you commenting on the thread in general? or making a dig at me? If the latter, please keep in mind that I would prefer NOT to see Carbon Taxes; but I'd prefer to see a Careening Climate less. There are a fair number of libertarian climate-change-addressing options (which I have pointed out) worth exploring before seriously entertaining a Carbon Tax.

|9.28.07 @ 6:26AM|#

Mark B.,

Solar Thermal energy can be effectively stored via steam.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19440/

|9.28.07 @ 10:39AM|#

Politicians would have an incentive to find the sweet spot on carbon taxes that would maximize revenues, but taxes would be unlikely to be raised as revenues tailed, as higher taxes would have a reverse Laffer curve effect of choking off the economy.

Mark Bahner|9.28.07 @ 12:58PM|#

Hi,

"Mark B.,

Solar Thermal energy can be effectively stored via steam.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19440/"

If you look at the article, the storage isn't actually in steam (steam is definitely NOT a good way to store energy!)...the storage is in molten salt. It's salt transitioning between solid and liquid state that absorbs/stores the heat (or releases the heat as it goes from liquid to solid state).

(Sorry, I'm an engineer...such geeky details are important to me. ;-))

Anyway, that's fine. That could solve the problem of storage at night. But it doesn't solve the problem of the fact that those solar thermal plants couldn't be run in the Northeast. So even though it may be theoretically possible to generate almost 100 percent of the electricity in the U.S. from solar thermal systems located in the Southwest, there would still be the huge problem of getting that energy to the Northeast and Northcentral (e.g. Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee) parts of the country.

For that, you'd need a HUGE expansion of the nationwide electrical grid.

In contrast, with fusion (particularly hydrogen-boron fusion), it would be possible to power all of NYC from the basements of buildings even on the island of Manhattan. One can't do that with any other power source (not even natural gas or nuclear fission...and certainly not coal, wind, solar thermal, or photovoltaics).

Mark Bahner|9.28.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Hi Tom,

Politicians would have an incentive to find the sweet spot on carbon taxes that would maximize revenues, but taxes would be unlikely to be raised as revenues tailed, as higher taxes would have a reverse Laffer curve effect of choking off the economy.

I think folks are talking about raising the unit price of taxes, not raising total tax revenue. The idea is that if pollution is taxes, the number of units of pollution go down as an attempt to minimize tax burden. Then, the price of a unit of pollution has to go up to keep the tax revenue up. So one ends up with virtually zero pollution with virtually infinite tax per unit of pollution.

Mark Bahner|9.28.07 @ 1:03PM|#

"The idea is that if pollution is taxes,"

Oops. Should have been, "...if pollution is taxed..."

|9.28.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Mark B.,
The U.S. (48 states) Grid is in three parts, East, West, and Texas. Most of the West and and Texas could be supported by Solar Thermal.

Here is another 24/7 energy source, high altitude windfarms:
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8952080

and then there's wave power, and advanced geothermal.

We don't need to wait for Fusion to put an end to fossil fuel power.

|9.28.07 @ 3:14PM|#

...though it would be 5w337!

Loren|10.2.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Just wanted inform you of a recently launched blog which may be of interest to you, End Poverty in South Asia (http://endpovertyinsouthasia.worldbank.org/), which addresses common issues you're discussing and has a recent post on issue of climate change.

The blog is maintained by Shanta Devarajan, the Chief Economist of the South Asia Region at the World Bank. Its goal is to create conversation around how South Asia can end poverty in a generation. Briefly, part of the recent post on climate change is below:

"As world leaders meet this week in New York and Washington to discuss climate change and ways to mitigate its effects, the discussion frequently turns to the large, fast-growing economies such as China and India who are, and are likely to be, among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. But despite being the world's second most populous country and fourth largest economy, India's CO2 emissions is still only one-fifth that of the U.S. or China. Furthermore, India is one of the lowest-intensity producers of CO2 among the large countries. India's per-capita emissions of CO2 is about one metric ton per person, compared with 4 as the world average, 9 for the United Kingdom and 20 for the U.S.. In a group of 70 of the world's largest emitters, India ranks in the bottom 10 (http://go.worldbank.org/0XAV4BYO60). In terms of carbon emissions per unit of GDP (measured at Purchasing Power Parity, or PPP), too, India is virtually the lowest among comparator countries (see chart). Finally, unlike in other countries, India's carbon intensity did not rise as economic growth accelerated in the last decade."

See the full post and share your thoughts here: http://endpovertyinsouthasia.worldbank.org/