Thanks to the people on my e-mail list for all the suggestions (more than 100!) about my draft
“Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth”. Most frequent criticism: the need for an
executive summary. Two people suggested: put a summary in the form of a letter to Michelle
and Barack Obama. I like that idea. They are equally smart lawyers, and if we can get either
of them to really focus on the actions that are needed, the planet has a chance.
The letter turned out to be four pages. Sorry. But I wrote a note to John Holdren, which can
serve as an executive summary. John has promised to deliver the letter, but cannot do so
prior to the inauguration. That delay is a problem for one of the three recommendations: tax
and dividend. Thus I am making the letter available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
and the revised “Tell Barack Obama the Truth” at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
in hopes of getting the information to people who continue to push for “goals” and “caps”.
“Goals” for percentage CO2 emission reductions and “cap & trade & dividend” are a threat to
the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and
less. Note:
(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes’ idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a ‘gas tax’ suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.
(2) “Cap & trade & dividend” creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the postfossil-fuel world.
(3) Supply ‘caps’ cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: ‘shortages’. All a utility has to say is ‘blackout coming’ and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate? Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.
(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.
(5) Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.
Some of you suggested that I should only explain the urgency of the climate crisis, the need
to get back to 350 ppm CO2 and less. Politicians are happy if scientists provide information
and then go away and shut up. But science and policy cannot be divorced. What I learned in
the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be
inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical
information on policy impacts.
Jim Hansen
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con
ReplyDeleteBelfast Telegraph, Wednesday, 31 December 2008
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.
The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.
But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.
“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.
"Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it
“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.
“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.
“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”
He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.
“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.
“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.
“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.
“I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me.”
Despite his views on CO2, Mr Wilson said he does not intend to backtrack on commitments made by his predecessor at the Department of the Environment, Arlene Foster, to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral.
He said while he wasn’t worried about reducing CO2 output, he said the policy would help to cut fuels bills.
“I don’t couch those actions in terms of reducing Co2 emissions,” he said. “I don’t care about Co2 emissions to be quite truthful because I don’t think it’s all that important but what I do believe is, and perhaps this is where there can be some convergence, as far as using fuel more efficiently that is good for our economy; that makes us more competitive. If we can save in schools hundreds of thousands on fuel that’s more money being put for books or classroom assistants.
“So yes there are things we can do. If you want to express it terms of carbon neutral, I just express it terms of making the place more efficient, less wasteful and hopefully that will release money to do the proper things that we should be doing.”
Not-So-Eager Beavers on Green-Energy Subsidies, by Drew Thornley
ReplyDeletePlanet Gore/NRO, Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Full text w/references: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTRiYzk1MjE3NTRmZThiMGRhZGNlZTBiNWZhMzE0ZTE=
The gettin’ is increasingly good and the law of unintended consequences alive and well in the Beaver State. An investigation by The Oregonian reveals that the state’s “green-energy” subsidies have spiraled out of control, with millions of dollars going to projects “with questionable environmental benefits” and to ones that would have been pursued without a government handout.
blockquote
The handouts come from Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit program — the state’s fastest growing tax shelter. The credits are so easy to obtain that more than 4,000 applicants have lined up to get them whether they need them or not.
“It’s gotten out of hand,” says Chuck Sheketoff, director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which studies the impact of state tax policies on low-income residents. “It’s being scammed. It’s not serving its purpose.”
Even banks and big corporations that have nothing to do with renewable energy are grabbing the tax breaks. Under the state’s generous incentives, groups and companies that qualify for tax credits can turn around and sell them. Most do. Standard Insurance, for example, paid $2.5 million to Flakeboard, an Albany mill that makes composite wood. In exchange, Standard gets to use $3.5 million in tax credits the mill received for building a wood-burning boiler that can generate electricity.
“My concern is, it’s going to be loved to death,” says state Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who chairs the Senate Revenue Committee. “Are we getting our money’s worth as taxpayers? Or are we simply doling out money to people who would be doing what they’re doing anyway?”
blockquote
(Funny you ask, the FTC is wondering the same thing about carbon offsets.)
blockquote
A case in point is Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the St. Louis-based chain that has shifted large numbers of its rental fleet to hybrids. Enterprise has received more than $100,000 in Oregon tax credits, mostly for new Toyota Priuses, which run on a combination of electricity and gasoline.
Yet the company would have bought the cars even without the tax credit, says Meghan Maguire, an Enterprise spokeswoman.
“We buy hybrids because it’s a reaction to customer demand,” Maguire said. “It’s a nice thing that (the tax credits) are available, but it certainly doesn’t impact our decision to buy hybrids.”
In some cases, however, Oregon energy tax credits have been used as startup money for projects that aren’t proven energy savers. One is Reklaim Technologies, a Bellevue, Wash., company that erected a tire recycling plant in Boardman.
Reklaim got $3.4 million in tax credits from Oregon. The company says the plant will extract usable oil from the tires and sell it as industrial grade fuel.
The problem, says Michael Blumenthal, a national expert on scrap tires, is that the process Reklaim plans to use, called pyrolysis, has never been proved as an economically viable way to recycle tires. It is possible to get oil from the tires, but it is prohibitively expensive, and the markets for the end products often aren’t there, he says.
blockquote
(Hmmm, millions for a technology that is not viable without taxpayer dollars? Add it to the list: wind power, solar power, ethanol . . . )
blockquote
Oregon’s energy tax credits began as a small, targeted program aimed at conservation and efficiency. It kicked into high gear after the 2007 legislative session, when Kulongoski pushed for some of the biggest tax breaks offered anywhere in the nation.
Under the 2007 rules, companies could apply for up to 50 percent of the cost of the project, up to a limit of $20 million, as long as they could show the project would save energy or produce renewable energy or fuel alternatives.
The governor saw what he considered to be two golden opportunities. One, green tech companies would move to Oregon to take advantage of the tax savings, bringing jobs with them. And two, the state would make progress on its goal of drawing 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.
At the time, state officials projected the changes would add $2 million to a projected $23 million hit on the state’s two-year budget. They were wrong. Less than two years later, the program is costing taxpayers $78 million. And that figure easily could triple again. State records show more than 4,400 applications pending for the credits, for projects worth $716 million.
blockquote