> The carbon tax should be levied at the point of production, the mine pit > or wellhead, and apply equally to imported fuels at the point of import. > There existing no global authority with taxing (or any other) powers, it > has to be levied on a national basis. The USA is the best starting point, > because it is the biggest polluter, its domestic policies have the most > global impact, and it has the greatest resources for quick installation of > a carbon-free energy system. The tax must fully apply also to indirect > carbon imports, by taxing all imports ad valorum at the rate implied by the > country of origin's ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP. And it should be fully > rebated to the people on an equal per capita basis, so that the working > class as a whole (especially its poorest component) will be over > compensated for the higher cost of energy.4 > > I agree with the above, but do not agree that a carbon tax is the most important. For one thing emissions are not that easy to measure at the "wellhead" or when imported. Every barrel of oil does not have the same carbon content as every other barrel. Every lump of coal is not the same as every other lump. Every MCF of natural gas is not the same as every other MCF. More importantly leakage during extraction and transport vary. Even with coal and oil this can be important. With natural gas, this type of leakage can exceed the actual burning in impact. For all fossil fuels, how the fossi fuel is burned has an extreme effect on impact - especially when it comes to coal and oil where black carbon effects can exceed that of direct carbon content. Difficulty in measure is even worse when it comes non-fossil fuel industrial sources and and biological sources such as forest degradation and destruction, and agriculture.
Even leaving difficulties in measurement aside, the key to the transformation that helps phase out fossil fuels is infrastructure - transmission improvements to move renewable electricity from where it can be generated economically to where it can be consume, distribution improvements (including so-called smart grid techniques) that let demand adapt to supply to some extent rather always requiring electricity supply to match demand. This can be done in a way that is completely transparent to electricity users. But you are not going to get widespread adpation on the part of consumers through complicated bidding processes or other market means. It will have to something simply: you get a smart meter and smart appliances free (or your existing appliances get turned into smart appliances through minor modifications). In return you get a small drop in you electricity bill. That will get widespread acceptance. But utilities want to use the smart grid as a new source of super-profits. They won't accept this kind of arrangement without public subsidies or really strong regulations or both. In short a smart grid requires planning. Also note that this is not something that can be done to an unlimited extent. Up to a point there are smart ways to match demand to supply that really don't incovenience users. Past that electrical service stops being available when wanted - which degrades the value of electricity. That means that low emissions sources also require planning to match supply to demand as much as possible. If wind and solar are used they need to be placed in the right locations where they generate electricity in as close a match to demand as possible. To some extent, more solar and wind electricity will have to be generated than needed so that by generating an excess sometimes they are more likely to have enough when demand is high. (Note to nuclear supports: the same is true of nuclear. If nuclear is going to provide increased percent of supply than it will need more capacity than required during periods of base demand to provide some of the capacity needed when demand is above baseload) To take another example: we need to massively insulate existing buildings. We need to make sure new building are insulated at close to "passivhaus" standards that require between 20% and 30% of what existing U.S. buildings do. Both these things pay for themselves at existing U.S. energy prices or even at much lower energy prices than those of today. So it is clear that an emissions price cannot be the primary means to get this done. You need really strong building efficiency rules for new buildings, and program where the capital risk is public rather than private. That is you sign up for an efficiency upgrade, and the cost gets added to your bill - but not as a loan, just as another utility charge, and as a utility charge does not go against your credit the way a loan does, a utility charge less than what it saves you That of course requires that public issue bonds and borrow money to finance this, cause private companies won't take this risk on a large scale. So even if the revenue stream exceeds the cost of the bonds, taxpayers are still assuming the risk that it won't. And in order for the deal to be attractive enough to get widespread consumer takeup, the added charge to electricity bills may have to be lower than required to pay back all of the cost, which turns it into a direct subsidy. Another example transport: while I'm more optimistic about electric cars than many - I don't believe that in the long run a low carbon economy will be able to afford the level of automobile use we have today in the US either in the US or anywhere else. That means we will need a lot trains, and while trains can be private in the sense of the public takes the losses and the private owners take the profits, trains don't exist let alone expand without public subsidies and are a public good that is best provided publicly. The need for trains is even more apparent when it comes to freight. I don't think anyone thinks you can make an electric truck carry a full containers, let alone carrying a container and towing anther than can go 500 to 2000 miles, drvien 12 to 16 hours a day. With a car, the weight of the car exceeds the weight of the passengers to a lot can be done by lightening the car. With a truck, the weight of the cargo exceeds the weight of the truck by many times (at least for heavy cargo) so a lot the tricks that make up for large battery size in electric cars would not bye available with heavy freight trucks. Just examples, but the point is that the key to transformation is public infrastructure just as it always is with capitalist transformation of technology. A price on emissions is important but supplemental. Public investment and public regulation (other than an emisisons prices) are key - that is to say planning. Spending tax money and passing regulations is the way capitalism does plannning. But while I know we have market socialists on this list, I don't think market socialists would deny the need for public planning when it comes to core infrastructure. And of course I hope non-market socialists would take the need for planning for granted. > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
