US Climate Change Policy

[nereo]

The Chinese are wise.  Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy.  They have done a lot to help their people in the last 30 years whilst the US has stagnated.

It looks like the Chinese do not see this as an either - or situation.  Their people have to wear masks because the air is so bad.  They are not pampered.  I remember seeing pictures of Chinese farming when I was a kid.  It was not mechanized.  Change and growth have been amazing.  They do not choose between the differing forms of energy production.  They try them all.  This "Cut and Try" approach is making them a world leader.

I'd be wary of false equivalence and selective reasoning here.  China "is trying to do more for it's... environmental problems" precisely because they have made their environment so bad over the last several decades.  That's why people have to wear masks in major cities. In the course of pursuing growth at all costs the government took the short term view, prioritizing increasing capacity in all its forms (electricity generation, transportation infrastructure, building and port expansion, military...).  To speed things along the authoritative government and its many contractors didn't require (or simply ignored) many of the same protections that are required and enforced here in the US and in Europe.  And the results were predictable - the air and water turned filthy, valleys were flooded and towns relocated in the name of 'the collective good', habitat destroyed, species endangered and now the equivalence of 'superfund sites' dot the landscape.

China today are addressing many of these problems... sort of.  There is a huge effort underway to clean up the air and water (particularly in the major cities), much as there was in the US in the 1970s, but the desire for growth still results in a lot of environmental degradation. In many ways they are starting to act like the rest of the G-20 with regards to environmental policy, but unlike with functional democracies there's nothing holding the government in check whenever they decided that 'X' needs to be built, damn the consequences.  Which is why even today China can tout the massive steps they have taken to reduce emission growth and their investment in renewables, yet at the same time even today the central government turns a blind eye when factories discharge heavy metals into rivers or allow new coal plants to be built without the basic scrubbers we require, ...because 'growth' and 'necessity'. Ironically this internal tension has made modern-day China into both a global leader for renewables and a global leader in coal consumption.

ll these regulatory steps we all hate when trying to build something sensible also serve as guard rails to protect us from the more detrimental projects proceeding.  I'm all for streamlining the process and changing the numerous laws that have not panned out as intended, but circumventing those laws entirely even if the intent is to help the climate puts us on very dangerous ground.

Instead of arguing whether global warming is a reality or not, our leaders should be turning our young minds loose to solve this problem.  Like the Space Program of the past, there would be technological spinoffs we cannot imagine.  There would be new technologies discovered to make our lives better. 

Instead we stagnate.  As the great American John Glenn once said, "We are eating our own seed corn."

I agree.  We ought to be investing more - a lot more. Instead we have a WH that "digs coal" and wants to spend billions more to build concrete barriers along our southern border. Interesting tie-in; both the concrete used for the wall and the habitat fragmentation it will cause are big negatives for those fragile ecosystems (not to mention all the energy expended for heavy equipment and road construction).

To me it seems like we could devote a small fraction of our resources to at least build one of these new reactor types, but the special interests do not even allow that.

I'm not clear who you mean when you say "special interests".  Environmental groups use the law to prevent what they see as detrimental against big polluters and proposed nuclear sites alike. Still, these obstacles can be overcome. A bigger problem IMO is the massive amount of capitol needed upfront to construct reactors - $10B or more for a new plant.

[LennStar]

Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy.

Why odd? This is, after all, what socialism is all about - doing good for the people.

btw. "Centralized Economy". There is a huge misunderstood fact of life here. Like it is impossible to do it on a state level size.
Putting China aside, there are a dozen entities on earth with a higher GDP than the former USSR, all highly centralized planned "economies". They are called Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on.

China "is trying to do more for it's... environmental problems" precisely because they have made their environment so bad over the last several decades.  That's why people have to wear masks in major cities.

Yeah. It was wealth first. The very first, right after the leadership of The Party, of course. ;) And the reason for wealth first was because that is the only way The Party could keep it's power. There is no country in the world where farmer's revolts happened more often. At one time in history there were 100+ uprisings per day over several years. And of course there was Mao...
You cannot understand Chinese economic politics without this in mind.

But saying it just this way is too one sided again. It is like saying the USA is full of Trumps. It might look so, but in a lot of cases it is not.

I could say a lot against the politics of the Chinese in regards to human rights, but generally they know what they are doing. And foremost, they have a Plan. With capital P. Where the US thinks in presidential terms, the Chinese government is thinking in several decades.
Most people in the USA have still not realized this, but by 2050 you will no longer be the most important country in the world - if everything happens according to the Plan of course ;) 
The Chinese are right at the point of taking over Africa. And central Asia with the new Silk Road. They are even building military bases, something extremely unusual for the center of the world (as per historical view). 

And yes, they are heavy into regenerative energies. They may build a few nuclear plants, but they also build more PV and wind than the rest of the world together if I remember it correctly.
There current stance since a few years is to go from the "workbench of the world" to be the "producer of the world", and they do go against pollution - depending on importance and political climate and such factors, of course.

The Chinese government is sometimes several years too slow, but if there is one thing you cannot say about them is that they do half-measures. One child politics anyone? That was part of the wealth plan. Economic growth must be (a lot) higher than population growth to keep stability. It is a bet on the economy outpacing the aging process. A huge bet. We will see who wins in 50 years.

[pecunia]

LennStar - No arguments.  Two billion educated people seeing the fruits of their hard work and looking to the future.  I do not believe they are like some other countries which appear to be rudderless in many areas.

I expect some great innovation to come from China in the next few years.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Putting China aside, there are a dozen entities on earth with a higher GDP than the former USSR, all highly centralized planned "economies". They are called Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on.

Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal)
Highest revenue companies #1 Walmart - $500B (Google and Microsoft are not even in the top 50 in that list)

Population of Russia: 147M
Area of Russia: 6.6M square miles

"Population" of Walmart: 2.3M
Area of Walmart: 400 square miles (assuming 20 acres per store, 12K stores incl. Sams' Club, +fudge for distribution centers)

[LennStar]

Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal)

I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)

A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D

[nereo]

Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal)

I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)

A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't really understand the comparison here between sovereign nations and corporations.  They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

[ncornilsen]

Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal)

I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)

A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't really understand the comparison here between sovereign nations and corporations.  They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.

[LennStar]

... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned

The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.

No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.

But anyway, as I wrote, it was just a sidenote.

So back to topic:
For those people that say it is too expensive to "go green" (which, in reality, is the opposite, it is just that as in any investment you pay now and get the benefits later), here is a possible source to finance it.
http://wealthtaxsimulator.org/

[nereo]

... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned

The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.

No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.

...I'm even less clear about what point was being made now.

... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned

So back to topic:
For those people that say it is too expensive to "go green" (which, in reality, is the opposite, it is just that as in any investment you pay now and get the benefits later), here is a possible source to finance it.
http://wealthtaxsimulator.org/

Assuming something like Sen Warren's 'Wealth Tax' could be passed, how do you envision the revenue should be used, particularly since the amount projected to be raised is substantially less than the current US deficit?

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.

But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned

The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.

No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.

Sorry I am staying off topic but only the very largest corporation (Walmart) is even on the scale of a country like Singapore on any of the metrics I cited (revenue, population, land area). Companies are better compared to small municipalities than to empires or nation-states in their scope and power.

Regarding your comment "No planned economy has ever killed millions of people" are we not counting the Holodomor or the Great Chinese Famine?

[LennStar]

Regarding your comment "No planned economy has ever killed millions of people" are we not counting the Holodomor or the Great Chinese Famine?

I can't say about the first, but it seems strange that the planned economy killed millions there but not in the other countries where the same happened, right?
And the Great Chinese Famine was not a planned economy failure, but a failure of understanding nature. Maybe even ignoring existing knowledge, but that also happens today on a wide scale in certainly not planned economy states. Bees anyone? Climate Change?

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
That was correct, but way more than eating seeds, sparrows eat locusts.
No sparrows left lead to immense swarms of locusts, which destroyed the crops completely.

[MDM]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

[LennStar]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.

[nereo]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.

Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.

[ncornilsen]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.

Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.

And that's why command/planned economies are doomed to fail. We're always learning things, and finding that our previous theories were wrong and even counter productive. Huge government bureaucracies aren't known for their excellent reaction times - and god help us if the existence of a bureaucracy is dependent on a flawed theory!

I'm inclined to think that our current climate theory is close to reality... there may be some variance in the time frame or magnitude, but that as a whole it's accurate.  I do NOT support the creation or conversion to collectivist economic theory to combat climate change, which seems to be what the fringe left that controls the media and house of representative's narrative wants.  I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing. 

[MDM]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.

Yes, that is the thread's title. 

It is apparently difficult to look back at something that has already happened (the Chinese Famine) and distinguish "the" cause from "a" cause and its importance relative to other causes.  The difficulty in distinguishing does not diminish when one is looking ahead at things yet to come.

[Glenstache]

For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.

A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.

Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.

Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.

And that's why command/planned economies are doomed to fail. We're always learning things, and finding that our previous theories were wrong and even counter productive. Huge government bureaucracies aren't known for their excellent reaction times - and god help us if the existence of a bureaucracy is dependent on a flawed theory!

I'm inclined to think that our current climate theory is close to reality... there may be some variance in the time frame or magnitude, but that as a whole it's accurate.  I do NOT support the creation or conversion to collectivist economic theory to combat climate change, which seems to be what the fringe left that controls the media and house of representative's narrative wants.  I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing.

I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.

[LennStar]

I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing.

You mean the Carbon Trading that has been a failure for a decade now?
and btw. that is a real bureocratic monster.

[nereo]

I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.

I don't see how this is substantially different from what governments around the world have been doing for centuries, albeit not with climate as a dominant factor in the decision-making process. 'Market forces' are already leveraged to produce outcomes from everything from growth to high home-ownership to westward expansion.

[sol]

You mean the Carbon Trading that has been a failure for a decade now?

He probably means one of the various carbon pricing schemes that have failed to win majority votes anywhere in the US, but which have successfully worked in places like British Columbia.  Washington just voted against one back in November, after a huge amount of oil industry spending trying to frame it as an "energy tax".  It's bureaucratically easy though, you tax carbon-producing industries at the corporate level and then you issue tax refunds to every citizen.  Average carbon consumers pay more for gas but get a bigger tax refund to make up for it.  For efficient carbon users, they get to keep the profits they generate by spending more on efficiencies.  For people who really want to burn extra carbon for some reason, they still can as long as they pay for harm they cause to the rest of us.

What makes less sense to me, objectively, is our current carbon subsidy system where we all pay higher taxes in order to subsidize carbon burning industries to bring down the up-front cost of burning it.  That's effectively wealth redistribution from efficient people to polluters, which seems backwards to me.

[Glenstache]

I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.

I don't see how this is substantially different from what governments around the world have been doing for centuries, albeit not with climate as a dominant factor in the decision-making process. 'Market forces' are already leveraged to produce outcomes from everything from growth to high home-ownership to westward expansion.

Yep.

[robartsd]

I'd like to see a carbon tax. I'd want the tax to be revenue neutral (California's goes to residential energy customers; I'd rather it went to individuals) and fair trade (carbon tariff on imports accounting for their manufacture and transport). Require government entities and non-profits to pay the carbon tax (no exceptions). Easiest way to implement would be as a fossil fuel tax with credits for sequestering. Set the initial tax rate and emissions targets in the law - use a formula to periodically adjust the tax rate according to emissions levels relative to targets (increase predictability of costs).

[Boofinator]

I'd like to see a carbon tax. I'd want the tax to be revenue neutral (California's goes to residential energy customers; I'd rather it went to individuals) and fair trade (carbon tariff on imports accounting for their manufacture and transport). Require government entities and non-profits to pay the carbon tax (no exceptions). Easiest way to implement would be as a fossil fuel tax with credits for sequestering. Set the initial tax rate and emissions targets in the law - use a formula to periodically adjust the tax rate according to emissions levels relative to targets (increase predictability of costs).

I agree, though the hard parts are 1) convincing the voting public that there is not an associated degradation in quality of life with said taxes and 2) convincing the public that the real economic hardships that will result (due to the resulting higher prices for domestic goods and associated negative trade balances and unemployment) are not a substantial price to pay. I think #1 can be solved by emphasizing the dividend checks and the resulting economic stimulus (the worst polluters will complain excessively, but the majority should be neutral or better off), and #2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.

[robartsd]

#2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.

I agree that domestic goods would not see large price impacts. Cheap stuff from China would become much less cheap if the carbon cost of producing and shipping it was factored in.

[Boofinator]

#2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.

I agree that domestic goods would not see large price impacts. Cheap stuff from China would become much less cheap if the carbon cost of producing and shipping it was factored in.

True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?

Not complexities, but simplicity.

There are a lot of guys with large snorting pickup trucks.  They love their pickups.  Sometimes, they carry their rifles in the back windows of their pickups.  It is just probably just as  likely that they will fight to keep their cold dying fingers on their pickup steering wheels as on their guns.   I don't think this can be discounted as a small number of people.

Those pickup trucks are very expensive.  They pay a lot more money for gas than I do in my small compact car.  They will certainly oppose paying more for said trucks (already very expensive) and the operation of sad trucks (already very expensive).

If the odor of a carbon tax is wafting through the air, these guys will do everything in their power to stop it.  They will vote.

[GuitarStv]

- SNIP -

True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?

Not complexities, but simplicity.

There are a lot of guys with large snorting pickup trucks.  They love their pickups.  Sometimes, they carry their rifles in the back windows of their pickups.  It is just probably just as  likely that they will fight to keep their cold dying fingers on their pickup steering wheels as on their guns.   I don't think this can be discounted as a small number of people.

Those pickup trucks are very expensive.  They pay a lot more money for gas than I do in my small compact car.  They will certainly oppose paying more for said trucks (already very expensive) and the operation of sad trucks (already very expensive).

If the odor of a carbon tax is wafting through the air, these guys will do everything in their power to stop it.  They will vote.

Give 'em a choice then.  Carbon tax, or ban personal use of trucks.

[Boofinator]

Here's an interesting piece on how to ensure carbon taxes are equitable on imports:

https://www.carbontax.org/nuts-and-bolts/border-adjustments/

Doesn't look easy, but seems doable under a multilateral coalition (such as the Paris Climate Accord).

[pecunia]

https://scholars.org/page/challenge-putting-price-carbon-emissions-united-states

From above:

"Australia shows the political difficulties a carbon tax can run into. In Australia, leaders with strong public support imposed a carbon tax and used the new revenues to fund dividends to compensate citizens. Following the best practice approach, the Australian program also targeted only the top polluters in certain industries and exempted agriculture and transportation, industries where a new tax and higher prices would have had the most disruptive impact. Australia’s tax program was very well designed from a theoretical standpoint and heralded as cutting edge because it even provided assistance to businesses that might be unfairly impacted. Slated tax increases were also very gradual, to allow people and businesses to adjust each step of the way. Nonetheless, despite the many ideal features, Australia’s carbon tax remained politically vulnerable. When a new, conservative government took office, it repealed the tax just two years after it was instituted."

How about those yellow vest guys?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html

I don't think you guys are going to pry the cold dead fingers from the truck driver's steering wheel.  I don't think the legislation from the "top down" by well meaning intellectuals will fly.

[Boofinator]

I don't think you guys are going to pry the cold dead fingers from the truck driver's steering wheel.  I don't think the legislation from the "top down" by well meaning intellectuals will fly.

Agreed. Until there's a plurality of people who a) care about climate change and b) are willing to modify their ways, then a carbon tax is a nonstarter. But, I think this is closer than you might think, especially in the United States, which doesn't already have extremely high gas taxes as France does. Even should passage of such a bill occur, there will always be hardliners fighting back.

[nereo]

As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.

OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds,  etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).

Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.

[sol]

As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.

OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds,  etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).

Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.

Carbon regulation is significantly more complicated.

Carbon extraction is the single most profitable industry in the history of our global economy, and it comes with significant entrenched power structures.  The current balance of the world is predicated on the cooperative extraction, refining, and distribution of carbon.  Our military is dependent on it.  Our foreign alliances are dependent on it.  Most of our major industries, and thus our tax base and thus our democracy, is dependent on it. 

The reasons why Russia is resurgent and why the Middle East has conflict and why Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil.  We invade countries that have lots of it.  We use our Navy to patrol the shipping lanes used to transport it, and the rest of our military to protect our territories and our allies' territories that drill it.  Wars always target the production and refining facilities first.  Oil is the single most important and interconnected resource on the planet right now, and any country without it always going to be a distant last place no matter how populous or industrious or creative it may be.  Oil solidifies our global inertia.  Our entire post WWII global system is built on the foundation of cheap oil.

So you can't just ban it.  Any alternative technology that threatens to diminish its importance also threatens to disrupt our uneasy global stability.  We rely on oil, and on other countries being dependent on oil, to maintain the status quo and our position at the top of that global pyramid.  In a very real sense, regulating carbon emissions is like giving away America's global dominance.

It still needs to happen, though.  We're slowly killing ourselves.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

The reasons why...Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil.

You mean just Norway? Denmark is ranked 39th in oil (just 8% of the output of Norway) and Sweden isn't even mentioned. Scandinavia is successful because the Nordic Model is successful; they have a strong work ethic in high-trust societies that enjoy social welfare programs alongside some key market friendly policies.

[scottish]

As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.

OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds,  etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).

Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.

Carbon regulation is significantly more complicated.

Carbon extraction is the single most profitable industry in the history of our global economy, and it comes with significant entrenched power structures.  The current balance of the world is predicated on the cooperative extraction, refining, and distribution of carbon.  Our military is dependent on it.  Our foreign alliances are dependent on it.  Most of our major industries, and thus our tax base and thus our democracy, is dependent on it. 

The reasons why Russia is resurgent and why the Middle East has conflict and why Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil.  We invade countries that have lots of it.  We use our Navy to patrol the shipping lanes used to transport it, and the rest of our military to protect our territories and our allies' territories that drill it.  Wars always target the production and refining facilities first.  Oil is the single most important and interconnected resource on the planet right now, and any country without it always going to be a distant last place no matter how populous or industrious or creative it may be.  Oil solidifies our global inertia.  Our entire post WWII global system is built on the foundation of cheap oil.

So you can't just ban it.  Any alternative technology that threatens to diminish its importance also threatens to disrupt our uneasy global stability.  We rely on oil, and on other countries being dependent on oil, to maintain the status quo and our position at the top of that global pyramid.  In a very real sense, regulating carbon emissions is like giving away America's global dominance.

It still needs to happen, though.  We're slowly killing ourselves.

When I read your analysis, you know what is top of mind?

Single point of failure.

[Abe]

It is interesting that Norway is pushing heavily into renewable energy investments, and is now divesting from oil production companies for its sovereign wealth fund. They see the writing on the wall in terms of both local supplies and overall effects on the environment making oil unsustainable in the long term. Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states are also shifting towards solar. China is too, despite huge coal supplies. Other good news: 1/3 of the total energy capacity in the world is now renewable, and almost all of the increase in the last decade has been solar and wind since hydro is pretty much developed in all politically and economically feasible locations. If growth continues at the current pace, 1/2 to 2/3 (depending on how much more power overall we need) will be renewable in a decade.

People worry that China and India's growing population will tip us over into a death spiral if they have standards of living comparable to the US, but the density of infrastructure in both countries is more comparable to Europe, so targeting those levels of consumption is a much more manageable target. Honestly, it is unlikely that a sizable fraction of India's population (and probably most of China's) will be able to afford cars in the timeframe where gas/diesel engines will be economically viable.

So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.

[pecunia]

-SNIP-

So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.

I used to work at nuclear power plants.  I hated it.  However, since quitting that business I see that it is ignored and lied about.  Why can't nuclear provide the emission free baseload power?  You wouldn't even need any solar and wind.  It may cost a bit more, but when has cost been a concern of environmental types? Then they worry about the waste and do everything in their power to prevent anyone from dealing with it.  There are new types of Nuke plants that can use Thorium with much less waste.  There is enough waste Thorium lying about to supply the energy needs of the US for 4,000 years.  You don't need to pollute the world with natural gas.  This is the solution to global warming and it is ignored.  Maybe, we deserve what we will get.

Of course opinions may differ.

[LennStar]

-SNIP-

So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.

I used to work at nuclear power plants.  I hated it.  However, since quitting that business I see that it is ignored and lied about.  Why can't nuclear provide the emission free baseload power?  You wouldn't even need any solar and wind.  It may cost a bit more, but when has cost been a concern of environmental types? Then they worry about the waste and do everything in their power to prevent anyone from dealing with it.  There are new types of Nuke plants that can use Thorium with much less waste.  There is enough waste Thorium lying about to supply the energy needs of the US for 4,000 years.  You don't need to pollute the world with natural gas.  This is the solution to global warming and it is ignored.  Maybe, we deserve what we will get.

Of course opinions may differ.

Afaik there is still no Thorium reactor in the whole world and the research on them is still basically not happening. My data is 4 years old, but I don't think that has changed. So even in baest conditions you will have a sizeable amont of reactors only when it is either too late to prevent climate change or the energy structure is already build around regeneratives.
Not to mention the waste problem: Why invest in something that is - from your own words - more expensive than regenerative energies?
And "baseline power" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Those power plants are too slow to adapt to changing supply and demand.

[pecunia]

Afaik there is still no Thorium reactor in the whole world and the research on them is still basically not happening. My data is 4 years old, but I don't think that has changed. So even in baest conditions you will have a sizeable amont of reactors only when it is either too late to prevent climate change or the energy structure is already build around regeneratives.
Not to mention the waste problem: Why invest in something that is - from your own words - more expensive than regenerative energies?
And "baseline power" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Those power plants are too slow to adapt to changing supply and demand.

Shouldn't this research be happening?  I mean this climate change thing should have many options brought to bear upon it.

By baseline, I think you mean baseload.  It is certainly not a "problem."  Industrial customers need their power 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.  In addition fossil fueled plants and nuclear plants can be built to swing load.  The issue with renewables is that the power is irregular.  Other forms of power must be built to make up the difference.  If you have to build two sources of power, why not build one clean source of power?

Reliable electricity will keep your beer cold.  You won't have to invest in a standby YETI cooler.

How about the waste?  I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it.  The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.

   

[LennStar]

How about the waste?  I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it.  The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.
 

In the case of THorium reactors its the waste you start with, not the result.
The worst stuff in the world. Plutonium.

[pecunia]

How about the waste?  I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it.  The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.
 

In the case of THorium reactors its the waste you start with, not the result.
The worst stuff in the world. Plutonium.

Yes Thorium is a waste product of rare Earth mining.  It's relatively cheap.  They used to use it in Coleman lamp mantles.

This quote is from the linked Wikipedia article:

"The thorium fuel cycle has several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle, including thorium's greater abundance, superior physical and nuclear properties, reduced plutonium and actinide production,[1] and better resistance to nuclear weapons proliferation when used in a traditional light water reactor[1][2] though not in a molten salt reactor.[3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Here's a quote from another link you will find interesting:

The Th-U fuel cycle does not irradiate Uranium-238 and therefore does not produce transuranic (bigger than uranium) atoms like Plutonium, Americium, Curium, etc. These transuranics are the major health concern of long-term nuclear waste. Thus, Th-U waste will be less toxic on the 10,000+ year time scale.

https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html

I guess it's like people have said.  Since it's harder to make bombs out of the stuff, there is less interest.  They don't like reactors that make little to no plutonium.

[LennStar]

I guess it's like people have said.  Since it's harder to make bombs out of the stuff, there is less interest.  They don't like reactors that make little to no plutonium.

Ah yes, I was a bit short here.
The point of a Thorium reactor would be to absorb (and destroy) the Plutonium from the conventional reactors (even if Thorium is the main fuel, you need Uranium or Plutonium to start the cycle) - thats why I said you start with the Plutonium waste.
And that is not only more complicated than other methods (and such more expensive, too), but it also takes away the reason most conutires have the current technology - to be able to create atomic bombs. If it weren't for that, we all would likely use a different type of reactor today anyway.

And of course we are still dealing with thousands of years we have to keep the results safe.

[nereo]

Doing my best to post more in the core forums this month, per my open challenge.  However, I see this question of increasing nuclear cropping back up without much consideration of the previous obstacles discussed in this and previous threads.  These include
 

• A baseline cost of ~$10B to build a new plant in a system of regional and private utilities
• Timeline of ~ a decade from groundbreaking to power production
• Decreasing percentage of nuclear power as older reactors are being taken offline and no new ones have been built in three decades
• Two most recent nuclear projects scuttled after several billion invested, and zero in the design and planning phase
• No central repository for spent fuel

These are systemic obstacles which will remain even if public perception flips and we decide to go 'all-in' on a nuclear powered grid.
Regardless of where you fall on nuclear power generation, from a practical standpoint nuclear might only have a sizable impact on a much longer timeframe (likely several decades).

[Malaysia41]

Vice News did a segment of me lobbying Congress for a pilot program to help animal farmers transition to low carbon-emitting businesses:

https://youtu.be/MfZB3BrjI74

Here's my campaign site if you want to kick in a few dollars. https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies

We lobbied the House of Reps in Feb, and will lobby the Senate next month. We are close to our $ goal to pay Ron our lobbyist for the next month but not quite there.   

What's the ROI on lobbying? Typically ~2000x. For example, animal ag lobby groups spent $16 million last year. Subsidies - both direct and indirect - are estimated at $38 billion per year (per David Simon's Meatonomics). That's a 2375x return. It's really, uh, depressing IMO.

[sol]

Vice News did a segment of me lobbying Congress for a pilot program to help animal farmers transition to low carbon-emitting businesses:

https://youtu.be/MfZB3BrjI74

Sharp pantsuit!

Also, good work.

[Malaysia41]

Thanks Sol. It's a Max Mara suit. Vegan - of course.

[pecunia]

Doing my best to post more in the core forums this month, per my open challenge.  However, I see this question of increasing nuclear cropping back up without much consideration of the previous obstacles discussed in this and previous threads.  These include
 

• A baseline cost of ~$10B to build a new plant in a system of regional and private utilities
• Timeline of ~ a decade from groundbreaking to power production
• Decreasing percentage of nuclear power as older reactors are being taken offline and no new ones have been built in three decades
• Two most recent nuclear projects scuttled after several billion invested, and zero in the design and planning phase
• No central repository for spent fuel

These are systemic obstacles which will remain even if public perception flips and we decide to go 'all-in' on a nuclear powered grid.
Regardless of where you fall on nuclear power generation, from a practical standpoint nuclear might only have a sizable impact on a much longer timeframe (likely several decades).

Right - A technology that should be abandoned and not even explored.  It is not an absolute that nuclear either has to be expensive nor take a long time to build.  There are new technologies out there that could be explored and may not have these difficulties, but let's not even consider the possibilities, right?

[nereo]

Right - A technology that should be abandoned and not even explored.  It is not an absolute that nuclear either has to be expensive nor take a long time to build.  There are new technologies out there that could be explored and may not have these difficulties, but let's not even consider the possibilities, right?

Not sure if you've reversed your opinion or if this is sarcasm, but if its the latter than we might discuss how to address these challenges rather than getting snarky.

How can we overcome the obstacle of upfront cost for regional utilities?
How should we address regional opposition and legal challenges to new nuclear plants?
Where do we store spent fuel?
What do we do in the interim decades to power the grid as nuclear production continues to decline?

I'd love to hear your ideas.  To date the industry has not been very successful at answering the first three, and both 'market forces' and local municipalities have addressed the forth, sometimes through voter referendums.

I also don't agree with your repeated assertions that no research has been done on nuclear energy.  The DOE spendings billions every fiscal year on the various facets of nuclear, including the Los Alamos National Laboratory, but also hundreds of millions each year in industry-partnership grants and applied research.