No New Energy Czar

We've been down this policy dead-end before

Ronald Bailey | November 11, 2008

According to rumor, President-elect Barack Obama is considering the creation of an Energy Security Council inside the White House. The council, modeled after the National Security Council, would be headed by a National Energy Advisor who would manage the country's energy transformation to a low-carbon economy. This idea is reminiscent of the appointment of "energy czars" in past administrations. This concept of a National Energy Advisor plays a big role in a Center for American Progress (CAP) white paper, "Capturing the Energy Opportunity: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy." CAP president and former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, who co-authored the paper, is now a co-chair of the Obama transition team.

During the election campaign, Obama outlined an ambitious plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, by 80 percent by 2050. This would be accomplished by imposing a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and then auctioning permits to businesses for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Over time the cap drops until emissions are 80 percent lower than they were in 1990. The initial auction might raise as much $100 billion, of which Obama plans to spend $15 billion annually on low-carbon energy research and development. The remaining auction revenues will be used for relief and rebates to help families and communities to cope with higher energy costs.

Obama also promised to put one million plug-in hybrid cars—cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon—on the road by 2015, by offering a $7,000 tax credit to purchasers. Obama also wants to provide $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees to domestic automakers to help build the new fuel efficient cars in the U.S. In addition, Obama promised to ensure that 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. These elements of Obama's energy and climate plans mirror proposals in the CAP's energy white paper. For example, the CAP suggested a $8,000 tax credit to the purchasers of the first one million plug-in hybrid cars and wants to require that 25 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2025.

A National Energy Advisor heading up an Energy Security Council is supposed to coordinate all Federal efforts at transforming our energy economy. But we've been down this path before. During the "energy crisis" of the 1970s, President Richard Nixon appointed William Simon "energy czar." As Simon tells it, "President Nixon announced to the cabinet that I was to have ‘absolute authority' and compared the job he was giving me with the role that Albert Speer played in the Third Reich when he was put in charge of German armaments." Simon confessed to being a bit uncomfortable about being likened to the Nazi Minister of Armaments and War Production.

Nevertheless, Simon became the director of the Federal Energy Office and overseer of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which imposed price controls on oil. Thirty-five years ago this month Nixon launched Project Independence with the goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency by 1980. In 1974, Time magazine reported that experts estimated that cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil in half by 1985 would cost $500 billion to $1 trillion over the next ten years ($2 to $4 trillion in today's dollars).

In April 1977, President Jimmy Carter declared the energy crisis "the moral equivalent of war." To prosecute this "war," Carter designated former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger as his "Energy Czar" and eventually persuaded Congress to authorize a new cabinet-level Department of Energy to centralize energy policy and research in August 1977. Carter too promised to cut our dependence on foreign oil, declaring in a nationally televised speech in 1979: "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never." Despite Nixon's, Carter's, and subsequent presidential energy independence projects, we import two-thirds of our oil today.

So looking back, did the drive to elevate and centralize energy policy and research actually help? Not a lot, as Robert Fri, a former deputy administrator of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Research and Development Administration points out. Fri noted in the Fall 2006 Issues in Science and Technology that a National Research Council study of DOE research and development expenditures between 1978 and 2000 uncovered less than stellar results. It is true that the NRC report estimated that DOE generated some $40 billion in economic benefits for the roughly $13 billion it spent on energy conservation and fossil fuel R&D programs. However, as Fri notes, "A mere 0.1 percent of the expenditure accounted for three-quarters of the benefit." That amounts to $13 million spent on unsexy R&D programs that resulted in electronic ballasts for fluorescent lighting, energy-efficient windows, and better refrigerators. These three programs yielded $30 billion in benefits. Fri further observes, "Three-quarters of the expenditure—a little over $9 billion—produced no quantifiable economic benefit. Half of this money was applied to synthetic fuel projects that turned out to be at least a couple of decades premature."

As Fri told Chemical & Engineering News this week: "The government is very good at starting energy projects that it believes will solve energy problems, but it is not very good at generating the intended results." For example, had the Feds somehow managed to continue the synfuels program, the U.S. would now be turning coal into the equivalent of 2 million barrels of oil a day with the unintended consequence of producing huge amounts of greenhouse gases. So how sure can an Obama administration's National Energy Advisor be that plug-in hybrids, or photovoltaics, or carbon capture and sequestration of coal plant emissions are the answers to our energy security and climate change problems? Perhaps biofuels produced using microbes is how we should power our cars. Or maybe concentrated solar thermal is a better idea for renewable base load electric power and coal-fired plants should be phased out in favor of nuclear ones.

Given that President-elect Obama is going to try to address what he sees as the Janus-faced problems of climate change and energy security, adding another layer of bureaucracy is not the way to go. The incoming Obama administration needs only to deploy one tool—its plan to cap and auction carbon dioxide emission permits. The rest of the complicated energy plan, with its plethora of top-down mandates, amounts to counterproductive meddling.

Once a sufficiently high price is set on carbon dioxide emissions, tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs will develop and test various new low-carbon technologies in the market. This means that no energy czar or council will have the opportunity to waste more billions by picking technology clunkers. Renewable energy production mandates won't be necessary. A high carbon dioxide price will stimulate the production of 25 percent of the country's energy using renewable sources. Tax credits for low-carbon automobiles aren't needed either. Higher gas prices will encourage drivers to switch to plug-in hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell, or bioethanol vehicles, whichever turns out to be cheapest. Imposing energy efficiency standards on household appliances or providing tax credits to weatherize houses will be superfluous as consumers seek to lower their electricity bills. And instead of rebates, the Obama administration could use the revenues raised by auctioning emission permits to cut federal taxes on individuals.

Instead of "change we can believe in," appointing a new energy czar would be a failed history repeating itself.

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

Comments

|11.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#

Agreed. The "Energy Czar" sounds more at home as a cabinet post in Latveria's Von Doom administration.

Lefiti|11.11.08 @ 3:14PM|#

I'm sure Obama will be open to advice from global warming skeptics on the faith-based right and business-worshiping libertarian cultists.

Barry O\'Bama|11.11.08 @ 3:17PM|#

Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

lunchstealer|11.11.08 @ 3:20PM|#

What? The Drug Czar thing worked really really well. Spending on the drug war skyrocketed once we got a Czar in charge. How are we going to spend a lot of money on energy regulation if we don't have a Czar?

|11.11.08 @ 3:27PM|#

Would anyone ever propose a Peace Czar?
For the reason they would not, they should never want a Czar of any kind, period. But "they" will, won't they? Damn "them."

|11.11.08 @ 3:29PM|#

Is O'Bama Irish?

O'Gallagher here.

|11.11.08 @ 3:30PM|#

I'd like to propose a Liberty Czar. Or, perhaps, a Sense Czar.

Monroe|11.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#

I'd be okay with an Energy Czarina.

Samual Bodman|11.11.08 @ 3:37PM|#

Don't we already have one?

http://www.energy.gov/organization/samuel_bodman.htm

|11.11.08 @ 3:46PM|#

"Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977-never."

One day the Chinese are going to say the same thing about aircraft, pharmaceuticals and software.

At least Garry Trudeau got some good material from the Energy Czar years.

Lefiti|11.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Why won't anyone pay attention to me! Waa!

Suggestion Box|11.11.08 @ 4:04PM|#

I think our Nation is crying out for a new cabinet level department: The Department of Windmills.

|11.11.08 @ 4:13PM|#

No worries. The Obama Empathy Czar will kick the Energy Czar's ass.

|11.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#

A Department of Windmills would put us on the slippery slope leading to a Department of Tilting at Same.
And that would be good!

|11.11.08 @ 4:24PM|#

Just take the Department of Energy (Education can go along) behind the fuckin' barn and shoot it. This is so typical of government. This (Department of Energy, Education, HUD, Labor) has been a complete failure, it has had no or deleterious effects on the problem it was purportedly created to address so let's make it bigger!

Perhaps Joe Biden can explain the never documented success the "drug czar" has had in ending the use of proscribed mind altering substances in America to the POTUS to be.

Paul R|11.11.08 @ 4:24PM|#

In America the title of czar for anyone or anything should not be tolerated. it conveys a message of power and domination. Our founding fathers would have never used such an anti-freedom term to describe any postion in the goverment. if someone had said lets appoint a czar for war education drugs etc. i do think they would have been shot on site. oh how times have changed the sheeple love the czar word, it makes them feel safe. tell that to the untold billions throughout history killed by ruthless czars, what their impression of the czar word would be

Larry McElhinney|11.11.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Obama is as ruthless and as dangerous as Bush. He's also more articulate and more charming. Check that. He's actually more dangerous than Bush.

Nat|11.11.08 @ 4:42PM|#

"tell that to the untold billions throughout history killed by ruthless czars"

Billions?

Piksa|11.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#

probably just a matter of time before Obama appoints himself a general "Czar" of everything

|11.11.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Ron, here you advocate for Obama's cap and trade. I'm curious what has changed between now and your article which described that system as corruptible under the baptists and bootleggers analogy. My crude understanding is that while large non-profits (Environmental Defense, NRDC, etc. etc.) and corporations prefer cap and trade, economists like the elegance of a carbon tax instead. In which the President-elect's support of the former seems to weigh against his avowal to listen to research, and never lobbyists, but I digress.

In light of the apparent untenability of passing a carbon tax, do you really think a cap and trade system could be adequate, assuming that emission permits are only auctioned in an open market, and never given away to favored parties?

|11.11.08 @ 5:06PM|#

Czarina Palin could eat crackers in my czarina-sized bed anytime!

|11.11.08 @ 5:14PM|#

I'm sure Obama will be open to advice from global warming skeptics on the faith-based right and business-worshiping libertarian cultists.

Really? Because I wouldn't have expected that at all.

Anyhoo, back to my altar. These businesses don't worship themselves!

|11.11.08 @ 5:19PM|#

Jonathon Severdia,
I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, but some bigwigs at the CFR published a paper for cap and trade advocating that the federal reserve banks be the issuer of credits.

The liberman bill was in favor of a "non-government" "fed-like corporation" being set up to issue the credits.

The obviosu advantage of this over the tax is that the expenditures would not be auditable(like the fed) thus billions could get thrown into slush funds to grease the skids of massive corruption.

Companies like Exxon(that pay for Reason) love this plan because they know they will be getting huge allocations fo credits every year which they can the basically sell to litttle people like us so that we can offsett our "footprint".

The earth is cooling...anyone care about that?

Frosty the Snowman|11.11.08 @ 5:33PM|#

"The earth is cooling...anyone care about that??"

I do. It makes me harder.

|11.11.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Hasn't cap and trade already been tried overseas?

Hasn't it failed? Due to structural problems (that is, it sets up a market in a totally artificial good that is created by governments that are inherently subject to influence, corruption, and short-term self-serving behavior)?

Why would any of this change if we try it? Because we would have The Right People in charge?

Spare me.

|11.11.08 @ 5:42PM|#

JS & RCD: Obama's plan is not cap and trade, but cap and auction which is more like a annually variable carbon tax. In this column, I am not advocating that idea, so much as trying to urgently point out that if it were adopted, the rest of his intrusive bureaucratic energy/climate plan will be unnecessary. If the country is going to go this way, the simpler, the better and the less overall corruption.

No Name Guy|11.11.08 @ 5:48PM|#

Well of course he'll want an Energy Czar. After all, us peon's shouldn't be allowed to, heaven forbid, make decisions for ourselves.

This particuar Czar will come fully equipped as well - the praetorian guard to swoop down and bust in your door when you're not buying your carbon credits to use your fire place, or have the heat on too high (or the A/C on too low). Of course, when they raid the wrong house (as will happen) and shoot a few dogs, no one will care, because, it's "for the planet" and it's a policy supported by "the right people in charge" and a "change from the Bush / Chenny" years.

Jeff|11.11.08 @ 6:02PM|#

"It is true that the NRC report estimated that DOE generated some $40 billion in economic benefits for the roughly $13 billion it spent on energy conservation and fossil fuel R&D programs. However, as Fri notes, "A mere 0.1 percent of the expenditure accounted for three-quarters of the benefit.""

I thought this was pretty much the nature of scientific research. For every breakthugh there are many more dead ends, is it truely surprising that most of the benefits came from a small portion of research. Even the research that lead to dead ends at least taught us what not to do.

the succes rate is probobly not as high as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute or other private research institutions, but I don't think it is outragous that most r&d programs are not deamed succesfull.

|11.11.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Jeff: You are right, but one point--a huge percentage of DOE R&D funding is actually spent on attempts to "commercialize" technologies, not fundamental research. In any case, don't you think that 0.1 percent effectiveness is a bit low even for government work?

|11.11.08 @ 6:31PM|#

"I am trying to urgently point out that if it were adopted, the rest of his intrusive bureaucratic energy/climate plan will be unnecessary."

The problem is that you misunderstand the real goal...they have admitted that they know global warming due to human caused CO2 emissions is a lie...They only want to use the lie to increase the "intrusive bereaucratic" police state. The crave power...not greenness.

Marklar|11.11.08 @ 7:04PM|#

WHERE IS THE GREAT LEFITI?

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'VE JUST BEEN NOMINATED "BIGGEST DOUCHE IN THE UNIVERSE"!

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.11.08 @ 7:16PM|#

Carbon taxes, carbon "cap and trade", carbon "auctions". Either way this BS will last forever, if ever implemented.

Ditto with "health care reform".

Welcome to Obama-topia, we hope you like an economy that's been kicked in the nuts. Because it's never going away.

Our only hope -- only -- is that somehow, our economic growth rate continues to out pace the rate at which they're able to dream up ways to knee-cap it.

And if anybody thinks the Democrats have any other goal in mind, then they have not listened to the Democrats.

I'd accuse the Republicans too, but it would be patently unfair at this point in history to accuse the Republican party of having any particular goals in mind.

We all knew that Obama was better.

|11.11.08 @ 7:26PM|#

A hundred billion, eh?

Something tells me that amount is going to get lost in the noise with the Fed tossing another trillion into the economy every six months until the dollar follows the Reichsmark onto the ash-heap of history.

-jcr

|11.11.08 @ 7:27PM|#

These businesses don't worship themselves!

Actually, they do. Just like government agencies.

-jcr

Chad|11.11.08 @ 8:05PM|#

"Gabe | November 11, 2008, 6:31pm | #

The problem is that you misunderstand the real goal...they have admitted that they know global warming due to human caused CO2 emissions is a lie...They only want to use the lie to increase the "intrusive bereaucratic" police state. The crave power...not greenness."

Citation please. Peer-reviewed data only.

Ron is only half right. A carbon tax or cap is the biggest piece of the solution, but it surely is not the only piece. The government is about 1/3 of our economy and needs to be about 1/3 of the solution.

Colonel_Angus|11.11.08 @ 8:52PM|#

Hey, look, it's Chad the scientist who hates his job.

I am tired of hearing about "carbon". It's fucking carbon dioxide.

This capping and taxing bullshit is going to badly fuck everyone over by artificially raising prices, all over an imaginary crisis.

Why the fuck does "libertarian" Bailey keep pushing this shit.

economist|11.11.08 @ 8:56PM|#

Colonel_Angus,
What do you mean "Chad the Scientist"?

Colonel_Angus|11.11.08 @ 9:05PM|#

A while back he posted about how he is such a credible authority on anthropogenic global warming because he is involved with a firm that does some research, and he doesn't get enough respect and money from his employer, and he has some kind of post-graduate degree or some shit like that which isn't paying off.

M. Simon|11.11.08 @ 9:23PM|#

OK I get it. Obama is going to take $100 bn out of the economy and give $85 bn back a year later while the warming phase is over for now. Possibly for as long as 30 years. And Al Gore will get his windfall profits.

The man is a genius.

So he is raising energy prices while the climate cools. I can see how that is going to be a big help to the economy.

But I understand him. He wants to turn a deep recession into a Great Depression.

Of course McCain was planning to do something similarly stupid.

We are so screwed.

Heinrick|11.11.08 @ 9:30PM|#

"Obama is as ruthless and as dangerous as Bush. He's also more articulate and more charming. Check that. He's actually more dangerous than Bush."

I heard he is even going to change his name to Serpentor.

M. Simon|11.11.08 @ 9:31PM|#

Why the fuck does "libertarian" Bailey keep pushing this shit.

Because he doesn't understand the water vapor multiplier? Which is where 3/4 of the warming is supposed to come from.

Because all he has read on the subject is the IPCC political summary?

Because if he actually understood science he would be a scientist or engineer?

Because he doesn't know that we could achieve the same results for 1/20th the cost by planting trees?

Because he is a Cultural Libertarian, not an Economic Libertarian?

Because he has no clue about partial differential equations?

Any other ideas?

Chad|11.11.08 @ 10:09PM|#

Colonel_Angus | November 11, 2008, 8:52pm
I am tired of hearing about "carbon". It's fucking carbon dioxide.

This capping and taxing bullshit is going to badly fuck everyone over by artificially raising prices, all over an imaginary crisis.

I am quite aware of the difference between carbon and CO2. Indeed, I touched both of them in relatively pure form today. I can indeed verify that they are not the same. However, when discussing climate change, "carbon" is often used rather than "carbon dioxide" both because it is liguistically easier and because the problem is carbon over its entire cycle, not just when it is CO2. Carbohydrates, carbonates, petroleum, natural gas, carbonic acid, graphite....all play a role in this.

You are entirely wrong about what is artificial: it is CURRENT prices that are off base. Post-carbon-tax prices will be much less "artificial" and far more representative of the true costs. Coal subsisides easily surpass 15 cents/kwr. There is nothing less artificial than the 2-3 cents we pay for something that truly costs us many times that amount.

Am I an expert? Not really. I am a PhD chemist who has been studying this as a hobby for my entire adult life, so I am on the 99.8th percentile on this matter. However, I leave the arguments to the true experts.

www.sciencemag.com
www.nature.com

When you get your rantings through peer review, get back to me.

Rex|11.11.08 @ 11:24PM|#

so, Dr. Chad, PhD, won't it be simpler to advocate removal of subsidies, instead of subsidizing and then taxing, and in the resulting confusion screwing consumers?

there are thousands of scientists (mostly PhD) who have signed petition to oppose these schemes. do they also fall into your 99.8th percentile?

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.12.08 @ 1:41AM|#

Post-carbon-tax prices will be much less "artificial" and far more representative of the true costs.

Define "true".

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.12.08 @ 1:59AM|#

And while you're at it, define "artificial".

|11.12.08 @ 3:34AM|#

Obama also wants to provide $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees to domestic automakers to help build the new fuel efficient cars in the U.S.

Bailey obviously hasn't been paying attention. They were already given $25b to do just this, and the hogs are back at the trough.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.12.08 @ 5:09AM|#

there are thousands of scientists (mostly PhD) who have signed petition to oppose these schemes. do they also fall into your 99.8th percentile?

No, they fall in the "you aren't qualified to have an opinion" category. Or later, perhaps the "burned at the stake" category. Religions do things like that.

Only the faithful are allowed to tell the rest of us what to do. The fact that they're imposing policy on all the rest of us -- which is going way way beyond the reach of science -- is irrelevant.

To those who believe, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not, no explanation is possible.

Did anyone think that history had finally done away with wars of religion? Think again.

|11.12.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Either global warming is real and caused by us, or it isn't. Seemingly scientists fall on either side of this issue, though it also seems like most scientists fall on the side of saying that it definitely does exist, and we are probably helping it. If there is credible evidence to the contrary, so be it, and honestly I haven't really gone looking for it. The point is, it is stupid to bicker about whether or not it exists as that is for the scientists. If it does, and it seems possible if not likely that it does, then we need a sensible way to deal with it. If Ron tried to prove or disprove global warming, it would be an exercise in futility. The best we can do is discuss where the country is heading and try to figure out the best way to get there.

ABC|11.12.08 @ 10:07AM|#

¨ tell that to the untold billions throughout history killed by ruthless czars, what their impression of the czar word would be¨

The Czars weren´t that bad, a lot better than the Soviets at least.

Do we even really need a president, let alone czars?

|11.12.08 @ 10:20AM|#

Obama's plan is not cap and trade, but cap and auction which is more like a annually variable carbon tax.

So the carbon credits bought at auction will not be tradable?

Post-carbon-tax prices will be much less "artificial" and far more representative of the true costs.

This assumes that we know what the true costs are, which in turn assumes that we know a great deal that we do not concerning the costs and benefits of carbon emission.

If it does, and it seems possible if not likely that it does, then we need a sensible way to deal with it.

It is by no means clear to me that we need a governmental program to deal with a changing climate.

|11.12.08 @ 11:52AM|#

RC dean

It is clear that a governmental program is needed if we want to create some type of system for worldwide taxation. The problem with national taxes is that uncooperative individualist will seek to avoid taxes by moving from country to country. If we can ever put a worldwide tax system in palce then noone would be able to avoid it without approval fromt he central planners. This is the dream we are all working towards.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Robbie,

Either global warming is real and caused by us, or it isn't.

This is what they'd like you to believe, but you're missing at least half of what matters.

The decision tree looks like this:

a) is global warming happening?

b) is it man-made, in part or in full?

c) is it really going to cause catastrophic problems?

d) what could we do about it anyway, assuming we even wanted to?


The answer to a) appears very much to be "yes but, then again it might be going back the other way right now and who knows where we'll be in 50 years".

The answer to b) is that man probably contributes, but nobody knows how much of the trend is due to entirely natural phenomena. We do know that in early recorded history the world was a fair bit warmer than now, so we know there are other factors at work besides homo sapiens' modern industry.

The answer to c) is that a climate shift might cost us some money, but it's very probably *not* going to be catastrophic. Because of what we know from early recorded history. Man's civilizations began when the world was warmer, and they did quite well.

The answer to d) is very, very probably, "not much we can do about it even if we wanted to". Because, there's the little problem of China and India who are *not* going to joint Kyoto or anything like it.

We can slit the throat of our own economy and with China and India still pumping away, it will almost certainly do no long term good anyway.

So if global warming causes major financial problems, we're way better off not doing anything that puts any drag on our economy. That way we're better armed to handle whatever the costs are, assuming they're significant.

Considering the string of uncertainties, it's very hard to justify imposing any drag on our economy. Unless Gaia is your religion....

|11.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#

So Reason BELIEVES there is a problem with too much carbon dioxide, also known as plant food, in the atmosphere? VERY UNSCIENTIFIC, VERY UNREASONABLE!!!

Chad|11.12.08 @ 5:58PM|#

Either global warming is real and caused by us, or it isn't. Seemingly scientists fall on either side of this issue, though it also seems like most scientists fall on the side of saying that it definitely does exist, and we are probably helping it.

It isn't "most", Robbie. It is virtually all. Wikipedia maintains a list of about two dozen prominent skeptics, who have relevant credentials. Two dozen out of ten thousand hardly represents a "side" to the debate. More like a wort. Every scientific debate has a few cranks that go to their graves denying the obvious and refusing to admit they were wrong. This one is no different.

R C Dean | November 12, 2008, 10:20am | #

This assumes that we know what the true costs are, which in turn assumes that we know a great deal that we do not concerning the costs and benefits of carbon emission.

No, I just have to know enough to make a better approximation that the status quo, which is a price of zero. Actually, it is ok to miss on the high side, as while this would incur a dead-weight loss, the tax would be offsetting other taxes which also have dead-weight losses. We should not increase the carbon tax to the point where costs and benefits exactly balance, but rather to the point where the dead-weight is equal to that of other taxes. Fifty dollars per ton of carbon would be a decent start.

rico|11.12.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Ronald Bailey has a very simplistic view of how to solve the energy problems.
The carbon tax will further erode progress in this country and hinder lots of mom and pop business and homes.
With no one able to afford energy even now, the carbon tax will be devastating.
Forget it and stick to writing about a less complicated problem. Personally, I hope they fire up about 20 Nuke plants and do it in 4 years. The space shuttle could always get rid of waste or it could be recycled in "Breeder" plants.
Wake up America
rico

Chad|11.13.08 @ 6:29AM|#

With no one able to afford energy even now, the carbon tax will be devastating.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Twice over, even.

First, I pay a whopping 1.6 cents/kwh for renewable electricity here in Michigan. Yeah, a whopping 6$/month. That is the exact opposite of "devastating". More like "hardly noticable".

Second, it is coal that is devastating, causing 15-20 cents/kwr of environmental and health damage. Econ 101 says that polluters should pay their full costs. Why would ANYONE who claims to be for free markets object to basic economics?

Nils|11.13.08 @ 9:43AM|#

it is coal that is devastating, causing 15-20 cents/kwr of environmental and health damage

Coal may do harm because of sulfur and mercury, but not because of CO2, which is harmless. Don't dilute the argument.

Chad|11.14.08 @ 12:43AM|#

Nils | November 13, 2008, 9:43am | #

Coal may do harm because of sulfur and mercury, but not because of CO2, which is harmless.

If you are going to deny every bit of science and every serious review of this subject matter, there is no point in discussing this with you. You may want to call up your buddies in the flat earth club. You seriously need to take a look at yourself and ask why you refuse to believe something despite a mountain of data to the contrary. Either you really don't believe what you are saying (making you a liar), or you are suffering from severe mental deficit which you may want to address. If your delusions were harmless, it would be one thing. But when they are likely to lead us towards into a mass extinction and broiled planet, they affect everyone.

Your "side" of the argument? A few crackpot websites that have been refuted again and again, though the owners are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit it. The other "side" of the argument? Virtually all of the thousands of people who study this subject professionally, virtually every major scientific organization on earth, etc.

Yeah, I would bet on the crackpots if I were you. Do you not grasp that climate change has caused most of the mass extinctions that have plagued this planet, including one that wiped out 90% of all life. Harmless my ...

Nils|11.14.08 @ 2:58PM|#

Wow, "flat earth club", "severe mental deficit", "delusions". Nothing unusual from that corner.

Anyway, let's look at your incredibly asinine statement of "mass extinction and broiled planet".

What is the worst-case scenario of all those experts you are referring to? Six degrees celsius? Do you seriously believe that will "broil the planet"? If so, I would question who is truly having delusions and severe mental deficits.

Other than appeal to authority, insults, and grossly exaggerated statements, you have showed nothing of substance.

Nils|11.16.08 @ 7:57PM|#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml