The point is not emissions measured by the microgram. It is global
emissions, which is the same thing as global hydrocarbon output. So
the average content works perfectly well. Once the commitment is made
to a zero CO2 economy (not the compromising "low" CO2 that will
inevitably leave the whole parasitic structure in place); prices are
set right; and the death grip of the energy parasites has been broken--
then the revolution in infrastructure will follow of itself.
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos
On Nov 17, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
