Let's Debate the Environment and Energy

[traininthedistance]

EPA should continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
- I'm against the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  Too much greenhouse gas may be harmful on a massive and global scale due to climate change, but it's not like pollutants where a single company operating in a harmful way can directly damage an ecosystem, including human health. We are going to be emitting large amounts of greenhouse gas for the foreseeable future even if we manage to reduce it greatly. How is the EPA in a position to regulate who gets to emit it and who doesn't, and how much?  If we are going to put a policy in place limiting carbon emissions, the best way to do it is through a carbon tax.

The EPA already regulates every major stationary source of pollution and automobile emissions.  They just need to include greenhouse gases in that whole process.  

Also, I think a carbon tax is vastly inferior to a emissions trading/permit method.  A well-set up trading scheme allows the most efficient distribution of emissions reduction, instead of using the blunt instrument of a tax.  And remember, carbon dioxide is only one of the gases that causes global warming.  Are we going to have a N20 tax and a CH4 tax too?  

There are two main reasons why I strongly prefer a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade scheme:

1) a carbon tax is easier to set up and harder to screw up; one needs only look to the EU's experience (where the credits were near worthless because they gave away too many of them) to see the pitfalls inherent in such a scheme.

2) the fact that a Pigouvian carbon tax is a "blunt instrument" is in fact to its advantage, as it captures non-point sources like tailpipe emissions.  A trading scheme really only can be implemented well for large, institutional polluters, but if one is serious about reducing emissions, then one should not ignore the small sources that are hard to fit in a large, institutional market.  

Nationalize the energy sector, rapidly develop nuclear power stations across the country, continue fracking/drilling for oil so long as it's safely regulated, etc. Make the wealthy pay for the transition to clean energy rather than the poor (no increased gas taxes, no carbon fees, etc.; a tax on financial transactions, millionaires, instead) and use the transition as a way to uplift wages and create socially responsible economic sectors.

Given the dismal state of the Highway Trust Fund (as well as our transportation infrastructure in general), and the fact that our federal gas tax, one of the lowest in the world, hasn't been raised since 1993, I think opposition to raising the gas tax is pretty much just insane even without taking environmental externalities into account.  Taxing gasoline, and putting a price on carbon in general, is superior to any other way to raise revenue for infrastructure, environmental, and energy programs for many, many reasons: it acts as a user fee, it directly captures the negative externalities inherent in burning fossil fuels (thereby directly promoting the use of energy sources which are not so finite and polluting).  If you're serious about doing things in an efficient, effective, and equitable manner, there is just no substitute for putting a price on carbon.  None.  

To claim that doing so is somehow uniquely "anti-poor" strikes me as the sort of twisted populist half-truth I'd expect to hear from folks like Don Blankenship and the Koch Bros.

That being said, I do understand that there are some legitimate concerns about the redistributive aspect of a carbon tax (though it should obviously not be considered any worse than any other comsumption-based tax on that measure).  But it's at least in theory pretty easy to address those concerns without falling into blanket opposition.  The way to do it would be to return a portion of the proceeds from any carbon tax as a flat feebate (which could ideally even form the basis of a guaranteed minimum income program, if you really wanna dream big), or to use the proceeds to lower sales taxes.

(To be clear, I would totally support a financial transactions tax in general- but it makes a lot more sense for the revenues from that to go towards bolstering the stability and equity of our financial system instead- boosting the FDIC's reserves, bolstering SEC enforcement, making student and small business loans more affordable, that sort of thing.  You get better results that way.)

[Franknburger]

Short term: (0-15 yrs) Natural gas is the imminent option that is both the cheapest available form of energy and a net reduction in CO2 emissions over the average of our generated power (which has a sizable portion of coal in it). The natural gas boom can help us tremendously; tax it, regulate it sure, but make sure it happens.

Medium term: (10-30 yrs) Nuclear power is worlds more cost effective than any other non-fossil fuel source for general consumption (some individual localities have features where this isn't true but it applies to the vast majority of Americans). There are dangers still, but much of it is greatly exaggerated. Nuclear energy actually releases less radioactive material into the atmosphere per unit energy than coal does. At this point, we should look into expanding our nuclear power capabilities so we're ready when the natural gas boom slows.

Long Term: (20+ yrs) Solar and wind are the ultimate in renewable energy dreams but are largely still a dream with current technology, both because they're prohibitively expensive and require large-scale energy storage, which we lack really good technology for at this point. Neither is ready for large-scale power generation today but can be effective for niche applications such as portable devices. Solar and wind may also make sense as supplemental technologies to add to a grid that is largely natural gas or nuclear power. Our primary investment today in solar energy ought to be in research for energy storage, alternate solar technologies to crystalline silicon, or alternate production methods for crystalline silicon. Those together make up the lynchpin of inertia for solar energy. Wind will never be more than a supplemental technology in most places since there simply isn't enough harnessable wind.

Agree on short-term (natural gas). Biogas (not bio-fuel) can complement it, and there is quite some unused potential to generate biogas from manure, possibly also from waste-water treatment and old waste dumps.

The cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy is a myth. First of all, safety requirements and with them construction costs, have gone up massively. After Sept. 11, you will want a nuclear plant to withstand a plane crash! A number of East European countries (or, more precisely, banks like Deutsche Bank and HSBC that were charged with developing financing concepts) have found new nuclear power plants built according to EU safety standards economically unfeasible  Secondly, nuclear power generation is the only industry that does not have to be insured against damage to third parties. If you factored in insurance premiums, as any other form of power generation has to pay, you would probably see every operating nuclear plant closing immediately. Thirdly, clean-up costs are also deferred to government and/or future generations. Nuclear waste will have to be stored safely for some 50,000 years. Asides from the fact that no country on earth yet has a clue how that shall be done, you should also already put some money aside to pay nuclear waste dump operation and maintenance over that period.

So, the long-term solution must also be the medium-term solution. "Not enough harvestable wind" is another myth. With the latest technology, wind generation becomes economically feasible at wind speeds above 5.5-6 m/s (the higher, the better). Now, look at the map below:
.
Note that this is wind speeds at 80m above surface, while the latest generation of wind power generators have 120-150 m elevation, and wind speeds tend to increase the higher you get from the ground.
Note also that the map has a spatial resolution of 2.5 km, manning it does not capture localised winds. Ever heard of thermic winds - steadily flowing between valleys and mountaintops. Check out this paragliding map in the link below, to find a few other locations with substantial wind power generation potential (Yes, Appalachia, there is an alternative to coal!).
http://www.paraglidingearth.com/pgearth/index.php?pays=223
There should also quite a number of windsurfing maps be available online ..

Where I agree with you is solar its only interesting for specific regions, essentially in the Southwest. Asides from cost-effectiveness and low operation hours (50% of the time it is night, and some days may also be quite cloudy), solar stops producing power when everybody wants to switch lights on, which is rather inconvenient.

Last but not least - power storage and  buffering supply / demand peaks. Indispensable for many renewables (though biomass and hydropower can be switched on/off in line with demand) This is where electro mobility comes in. Essentially, instead of building a few large batteries, you have 100 million small batteries across the country, all of which reload over night in the garage, when power demand is low.
What you need in addition (and that will take some time to establish) is a "smart grid", which transmits power availability / price information to consumers. Essentially, you would then program your electro car to start reloading as soon as the price goes beyond  a certain threshold, but in any case at 3 am (to make sure you get to work the next morning). Same with non time-critical household devices (dishwasher, washing machine). You have them running over night as soon as the price is right, thereby smoothening demand and absorbing production peaks.

[barfbag]

I think a carbon tax and nationalization of the energy sector are extreme. The private sector does a better job than the government. Investing in research and adding greenhouse gases EPA regulations helps, but when the government takes things over, inefficiency is usually the outcome.

[bedstuy]

EPA should continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
- I'm against the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  Too much greenhouse gas may be harmful on a massive and global scale due to climate change, but it's not like pollutants where a single company operating in a harmful way can directly damage an ecosystem, including human health. We are going to be emitting large amounts of greenhouse gas for the foreseeable future even if we manage to reduce it greatly. How is the EPA in a position to regulate who gets to emit it and who doesn't, and how much?  If we are going to put a policy in place limiting carbon emissions, the best way to do it is through a carbon tax.

The EPA already regulates every major stationary source of pollution and automobile emissions.  They just need to include greenhouse gases in that whole process.  

Also, I think a carbon tax is vastly inferior to a emissions trading/permit method.  A well-set up trading scheme allows the most efficient distribution of emissions reduction, instead of using the blunt instrument of a tax.  And remember, carbon dioxide is only one of the gases that causes global warming.  Are we going to have a N20 tax and a CH4 tax too?  

There are two main reasons why I strongly prefer a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade scheme:

1) a carbon tax is easier to set up and harder to screw up; one needs only look to the EU's experience (where the credits were near worthless because they gave away too many of them) to see the pitfalls inherent in such a scheme.

2) the fact that a Pigouvian carbon tax is a "blunt instrument" is in fact to its advantage, as it captures non-point sources like tailpipe emissions.  A trading scheme really only can be implemented well for large, institutional polluters, but if one is serious about reducing emissions, then one should not ignore the small sources that are hard to fit in a large, institutional market.  

1.  We also have great success stories of pollution trading schemes including the Acid Rain program in the United States.  I agree, it's difficult to set up a trading scheme and difficult to get it right.  But, what if we put a ton of resources into creating the trading system?  We have far more complicated and dynamic markets in the private sector.  It's not like it's impossible if there's the political will to make it happen. 

And, once you have a quality trading scheme, cap and trade is vastly superior to a tax.  A tax doesn't allow the most efficient allocation of pollution.  Every polluter will reduce their emissions to an extent.  But, there's no incentive to reduce more than the tax forces you to.  In a trading scheme, there is always an incentive for polluters to find ways to lower their emissions.  A market is always going to allocate scare resources more efficiently than an across the board mandate. 

The fact that cap-and-trade is a free market solution also could help its political viability with industry and Republicans. 

2.  True, people are not going to buy pollution credit to be able to drive their car.  That's obvious.  But, that doesn't mean we need inefficient regulation of point sources.

And for non-point sources, we're basically talking about cars and trucks.  We have a system of pollution abatement for mobile sources under section 200 of the CAA.  And if you think about it, we already have a carbon tax for mobile sources, the gasoline tax.  I don't see how that's an argument against cap and trade. 

[barfbag]

Cap and trade is better than taxes. ^^

[Franknburger]

The problem with cap and trade is that the cap part of it can easily be altered by the government in power. This happened in Germany after 2009, when the FDP-lead Ministry of Economy raised the cap (or, more specifically, did away with most of the automatic annual decrease that had been originally introduced as part of the cap and trade regime at the start of the millennium). As a consequence, the value of CO² emission rights at the Leipzig stock exchange has plummeted to almost zero.
That does not mean that I am against it - to the opposite, for all the reasons already mentioned here, it is superior to taxation and even more to regulatory instruments. However, the system requires safeguards against short-term tampering for party policy purposes.

Otherwise, it is true that the gasoline tax is already a form of carbon tax  for transport vehicles (and other consumption such as small-scale power generators). However, in international comparison, the US gasoline tax is extremely low - one of the main reasons why US CO² emission per capita are, at 17,3 tons, among the highest in the world (Germany 9.9, EU average 7.5, China 7.2). if the US is really serious about reducing CO² emissions, it needs to substantially increase gasoline tax (which would also help a lot to balance the budget).
 

[bedstuy]

The problem with cap and trade is that the cap part of it can easily be altered by the government in power. This happened in Germany after 2009, when the FDP-lead Ministry of Economy raised the cap (or, more specifically, did away with most of the automatic annual decrease that had been originally introduced as part of the cap and trade regime at the start of the millennium). As a consequence, the value of CO² emission rights at the Leipzig stock exchange has plummeted to almost zero.
That does not mean that I am against it - to the opposite, for all the reasons already mentioned here, it is superior to taxation and even more to regulatory instruments. However, the system requires safeguards against short-term tampering for party policy purposes.

It should be noted that the US air pollution statute has had a similar problem.  When the Clean Air Act was passed in the 1970s, the goal was the entire United States meeting the NAAQS within a few years.  Well, 43 years later and most major metro areas have not met our ambient air quality standards for at least one air pollutant.  The EPA has had the authority to actually force states like California to actually attempt to reach the NAAQS, but they haven't.  There simply isn't the political will to have the EPA significantly impact the economy like that.  So, this is a problem of political/economic pressure on environmental legislation in general, not just cap and trade. 


However, in America, we do have the benefit of having a system where major legislation is almost impossible to repeal.  So, once you get this system passed (might take another Democratic wave), it could stick around for a long time.
I think the best answer might be the following.  In exchange for Republicans going along with cap and trade:
-The CAA and CWA will move to cap and trade for criteria pollutants.
-The targeted reductions in C02 set out will be modest for the first 5-10 years.

[traininthedistance]

1.  We also have great success stories of pollution trading schemes including the Acid Rain program in the United States.  I agree, it's difficult to set up a trading scheme and difficult to get it right.  But, what if we put a ton of resources into creating the trading system?  We have far more complicated and dynamic markets in the private sector.  It's not like it's impossible if there's the political will to make it happen. 

And, once you have a quality trading scheme, cap and trade is vastly superior to a tax.  A tax doesn't allow the most efficient allocation of pollution.  Every polluter will reduce their emissions to an extent.  But, there's no incentive to reduce more than the tax forces you to.  In a trading scheme, there is always an incentive for polluters to find ways to lower their emissions.  A market is always going to allocate scare resources more efficiently than an across the board mandate. 

The fact that cap-and-trade is a free market solution also could help its political viability with industry and Republicans. 

2.  True, people are not going to buy pollution credit to be able to drive their car.  That's obvious.  But, that doesn't mean we need inefficient regulation of point sources.

And for non-point sources, we're basically talking about cars and trucks.  We have a system of pollution abatement for mobile sources under section 200 of the CAA.  And if you think about it, we already have a carbon tax for mobile sources, the gasoline tax.  I don't see how that's an argument against cap and trade. 

Yeah, because cap-and-trade being a "market scheme" certainly helped it pass with Republican support and become law in 2009.

And, there are actually quite a few non-point sources that aren't cars and trucks- home heating, for instance, as well as emissions from agriculture and forestry. 

I tend to agree with Franknburger that the political tripwires inherent in a cap-and-trade system are sufficiently numerous that a carbon tax is more likely to have a good outcome even if it is not quite as perfectly efficient.  But, really, either option is better than the status quo.

The cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy is a myth. First of all, safety requirements and with them construction costs, have gone up massively. After Sept. 11, you will want a nuclear plant to withstand a plane crash! A number of East European countries (or, more precisely, banks like Deutsche Bank and HSBC that were charged with developing financing concepts) have found new nuclear power plants built according to EU safety standards economically unfeasible  Secondly, nuclear power generation is the only industry that does not have to be insured against damage to third parties. If you factored in insurance premiums, as any other form of power generation has to pay, you would probably see every operating nuclear plant closing immediately. Thirdly, clean-up costs are also deferred to government and/or future generations. Nuclear waste will have to be stored safely for some 50,000 years. Asides from the fact that no country on earth yet has a clue how that shall be done, you should also already put some money aside to pay nuclear waste dump operation and maintenance over that period.

I would argue that the main problem with nuclear waste is political, not technical.  We know Yucca Mountain would work just fine if there were no NIMBY opposition.  And I have actually heard that there's quite a bit of energy left in those "spent" fuel rods, that with a different reactor design or regulatory scheme, we'd be able to harness.

Likewise, while it is true that new nuclear construction is prohibitively expensive, I view that again as a political and regulatory problem rather than a technical one.  As you say, they need incredible levels of security and redundancy and overbuilding.  We're probably not going to be building any more new conventional reactors for that reason.  But I'd argue that we absolutely should be researching, and eventually building, next-gen nuclear that aims to overcome these problems.  In particular, I don't see any reason not to try and do something with thorium as the fuel- which is more plentiful than uranium, can't really be made into weapons, and cannot support a chain reaction without priming, which is obviously a great feature from a safety perspective.

...

The rest of your post is spot-on, of course.

[bedstuy]

1.  We also have great success stories of pollution trading schemes including the Acid Rain program in the United States.  I agree, it's difficult to set up a trading scheme and difficult to get it right.  But, what if we put a ton of resources into creating the trading system?  We have far more complicated and dynamic markets in the private sector.  It's not like it's impossible if there's the political will to make it happen.  

And, once you have a quality trading scheme, cap and trade is vastly superior to a tax.  A tax doesn't allow the most efficient allocation of pollution.  Every polluter will reduce their emissions to an extent.  But, there's no incentive to reduce more than the tax forces you to.  In a trading scheme, there is always an incentive for polluters to find ways to lower their emissions.  A market is always going to allocate scare resources more efficiently than an across the board mandate.  

The fact that cap-and-trade is a free market solution also could help its political viability with industry and Republicans.  

2.  True, people are not going to buy pollution credit to be able to drive their car.  That's obvious.  But, that doesn't mean we need inefficient regulation of point sources.

And for non-point sources, we're basically talking about cars and trucks.  We have a system of pollution abatement for mobile sources under section 200 of the CAA.  And if you think about it, we already have a carbon tax for mobile sources, the gasoline tax.  I don't see how that's an argument against cap and trade.  

Yeah, because cap-and-trade being a "market scheme" certainly helped it pass with Republican support and become law in 2009.

And, there are actually quite a few non-point sources that aren't cars and trucks- home heating, for instance, as well as emissions from agriculture and forestry.  

I tend to agree with Franknburger that the political tripwires inherent in a cap-and-trade system are sufficiently numerous that a carbon tax is more likely to have a good outcome even if it is not quite as perfectly efficient.  But, really, either option is better than the status quo.

Well, my point about regulation of non-point and mobile sources is that they get handled under the Clean Air Act in various ways.  Mobile sources are highly regulated.  Non-point sources get regulated under SIPs and various other regs.  Non-point air pollution is a much larger issue for VOC and particulate matter air pollution  than C02 anyway.  The CAA now includes GHGs so cap and trade is going to be supplemented enough to cover those.  

The breakdown as far as I know is: Mobile + Stationary sources = about 90% of C02 emissions.

On the political point, cap and trade did get the support of John McCain and a previous generation of non-insane Republicans.  It nearly passed and would have if Democrats had the guts to ram it through.  And if you look at a carbon tax, that would have been a non-starter politically.  Bottom line, Republicans have become unhinged on this issue. Whatever we try is going to be a tough fight.  We could also comprise by at first changing the CAA to use cap and trade principles instead of command and control.  I think most reasonable people would support that and it would build our infrastructure, expertise and comfort with marketable permit systems.

And again, I don't agree there's anything inherently tripwire-y about cap and trade.  The history of the EPA is that these statutes tend to stick around for a while. We haven't revised the CAA since 1990.  Also, important to note that Obama getting some more DC circuit judges would greatly improve our ability to implement and protect environmental protection like this.

[traininthedistance]

Also, important to note that Obama getting some more DC circuit judges would greatly improve our ability to implement and protect environmental protection like this.

Yeah, that's an understatement.

[Franknburger]

In particular, I don't see any reason not to try and do something with thorium as the fuel- which is more plentiful than uranium, can't really be made into weapons, and cannot support a chain reaction without priming, which is obviously a great feature from a safety perspective.

Well, there has already been something tried out with Thorium, namely the THTR-300 (Thorium High-Temperature Reactor) in Germany, which started operation in 1983, and was shut-down and decommissioned in 1989 after 423 days in full operation (the remaining time it was in repair).
While Thorium.based reactors appear at first sight to be safer, as they cannot support a chain reaction, they are far from being secure. The main problem is that the Thorium breeding process results in extremely high operation temperatures. Any problems with cooling may quickly lead to temperatures around 2.300° Celsius, which will destroy most known (and/or affordable) containment material, and as such at least cause a damage comparable to the Fukushima accident, i.e. severe radioactive pollution within a radius of 15-30 km. This also implies that the outer hull, which contains equipment such as cooling pumps, emergency power generation for the cooling system etc., must be able to withstand airplane crashes. As such, I don't think a reasonably safe Thorium-based reactor would be much cheaper than a conventional one - rather to the opposite.
There are other problems involved: You can't use water as cooling fluid anymore. The THTR used pressurised helium instead. Helium, especially when heated,, however, has a higher friction coefficient than water, which resulted in high breakage rates of the Thorium pellets and the Graphite absorbers (a key reason for the frequent reactor standstills and repairs). They tried to reduce friction and breakage by adding ammonium to the helium, which reduced (though not solved) the friction problem, but instead caused excessive corrosion of metal components and damage to the concrete dome. Current research focuses on molten salt and/or Fluoride as cooling agent. My high-school chemistry knowledge leads me to assume that this may lead to similar corrosion problems. Sure, somebody will sooner or later develop corrosion-proof material for pipes and the inner containment, but I bet such material will be pretty expensive ...

The problem with nuclear waste storage is that we are not anymore dealing with historical, but with geological timeframes. Essentially, we need a place that is safe for the next 50,000 years (or, alternatively, an organisation that is able to relocate the waste when a new geological risk becomes apparent in, say, 15,000 years). To make my point clearer: 50,000 years is about the time that has passed since the last major eruption of the Yellowstone. The last 'minor' eruption, creating a 5 km diameter crater, occurred there some 13,000 years ago. So I doubt anybody today can say whether Yucca Mountain will be safe safe or not- especially when considering that Yucca Mountain is the ridge of a volcanic caldera, in one of the US' most active seismic zones, where the last volcanic eruption took place no more than 80,000 years ago.

The Alps have over the last 50,000 years gained some 50-100 m in elevation (the Rocky's should be similar). 50-100m does not sound much at first, but relate it to the size of a nuclear waste site storage chamber or entrance tunnel. And think about what kind of fissures and gaps such an elevation process may cause...

And there is the dilemma: Take a volcanic site, and you don't know whether (and when) it will become active again. Take a geologically younger mountain range- seismic processes are still on-going and hardly predictable in their outcome.  Take a salt-dome below an alluvial plain (the German attempt) - it is moving even faster, has the risk of water intrusion and wash-outs, includes chambers of natural gas that may explode, and of course corrodes the storage devices rather quickly. The Swedish way (geologically older mountains) may be workable - let's wait and see what their exploration uncovers .......

[barfbag]

The problem with cap and trade is that the cap part of it can easily be altered by the government in power. This happened in Germany after 2009, when the FDP-lead Ministry of Economy raised the cap (or, more specifically, did away with most of the automatic annual decrease that had been originally introduced as part of the cap and trade regime at the start of the millennium). As a consequence, the value of CO² emission rights at the Leipzig stock exchange has plummeted to almost zero.
That does not mean that I am against it - to the opposite, for all the reasons already mentioned here, it is superior to taxation and even more to regulatory instruments. However, the system requires safeguards against short-term tampering for party policy purposes.

Otherwise, it is true that the gasoline tax is already a form of carbon tax  for transport vehicles (and other consumption such as small-scale power generators). However, in international comparison, the US gasoline tax is extremely low - one of the main reasons why US CO² emission per capita are, at 17,3 tons, among the highest in the world (Germany 9.9, EU average 7.5, China 7.2). if the US is really serious about reducing CO² emissions, it needs to substantially increase gasoline tax (which would also help a lot to balance the budget).
 

It could be altered but that's a lot of policies. I think gas taxes hurt the average person filling up their tank for their family.

[Franknburger]

I think gas taxes hurt the average person filling up their tank for their family.

Yes, they do - to the extent the "average person" is living in the suburbs/ exurbs without adequate access to public or other means of transport (especially bicycles). Just as that "average person" is hurting the environment and/or contributing to the US' excessive production of CO².

Of course, raising gasoline taxes shouldn't be done as a stand-alone measure, but as part of an ecological tax reform, which returns (part of) the revenue back to citizens. In Germany, the revenue from raising fuel taxes in the late 1990s was used to reduce mandatory pension fund contributions, and to reduce income tax on lower and middle-classes. Since in Germany, mandatory pension funds payments are to equally shares paid by the employer and the employee, this decreased labour costs and helped to reduce unemployment. Income tax credit for commuting to work (don't know if that exists in the US as well) was also increased. Furthermore, part of the revenue went into programs for improving public transport, constructing bicycle path networks within and towards cities, building park & ride areas on suburban railway lines, and promoting car-sharing of commuters.
In the US, I could. e.g., imagine putting some of the revenue into financing mandatory health insurance and Medicare.

Another important feature would be to not increase the gasoline tax immediately, but gradually and with pre-announcement (in Germany the increase was phased over five years, from 1998 to 2003), so people can prepare for it, e.g. by buying fuel-efficient cars or relocating closer to their workplace / public transport. A nice side-effect is an increase in purchases of new cars,  which helps to stimulate domestic employment. In Germany, new car sales between 1998 and 2001 were some 10-15% higher than during the years before the gasoline tax increase (see diagram below).

[Ban my account ffs!]

EPA should continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
- I'm against the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  Too much greenhouse gas may be harmful on a massive and global scale due to climate change, but it's not like pollutants where a single company operating in a harmful way can directly damage an ecosystem, including human health. We are going to be emitting large amounts of greenhouse gas for the foreseeable future even if we manage to reduce it greatly. How is the EPA in a position to regulate who gets to emit it and who doesn't, and how much?  If we are going to put a policy in place limiting carbon emissions, the best way to do it is through a carbon tax.

The EPA already regulates every major stationary source of pollution and automobile emissions.  They just need to include greenhouse gases in that whole process. 

Also, I think a carbon tax is vastly inferior to a emissions trading/permit method.  A well-set up trading scheme allows the most efficient distribution of emissions reduction, instead of using the blunt instrument of a tax.  And remember, carbon dioxide is only one of the gases that causes global warming.  Are we going to have a N20 tax and a CH4 tax too?   

There are two main reasons why I strongly prefer a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade scheme:

1) a carbon tax is easier to set up and harder to screw up; one needs only look to the EU's experience (where the credits were near worthless because they gave away too many of them) to see the pitfalls inherent in such a scheme.

2) the fact that a Pigouvian carbon tax is a "blunt instrument" is in fact to its advantage, as it captures non-point sources like tailpipe emissions.  A trading scheme really only can be implemented well for large, institutional polluters, but if one is serious about reducing emissions, then one should not ignore the small sources that are hard to fit in a large, institutional market. 

Nationalize the energy sector, rapidly develop nuclear power stations across the country, continue fracking/drilling for oil so long as it's safely regulated, etc. Make the wealthy pay for the transition to clean energy rather than the poor (no increased gas taxes, no carbon fees, etc.; a tax on financial transactions, millionaires, instead) and use the transition as a way to uplift wages and create socially responsible economic sectors.

Given the dismal state of the Highway Trust Fund (as well as our transportation infrastructure in general), and the fact that our federal gas tax, one of the lowest in the world, hasn't been raised since 1993, I think opposition to raising the gas tax is pretty much just insane even without taking environmental externalities into account.  Taxing gasoline, and putting a price on carbon in general, is superior to any other way to raise revenue for infrastructure, environmental, and energy programs for many, many reasons: it acts as a user fee, it directly captures the negative externalities inherent in burning fossil fuels (thereby directly promoting the use of energy sources which are not so finite and polluting).  If you're serious about doing things in an efficient, effective, and equitable manner, there is just no substitute for putting a price on carbon.  None. 

To claim that doing so is somehow uniquely "anti-poor" strikes me as the sort of twisted populist half-truth I'd expect to hear from folks like Don Blankenship and the Koch Bros.

That being said, I do understand that there are some legitimate concerns about the redistributive aspect of a carbon tax (though it should obviously not be considered any worse than any other comsumption-based tax on that measure).  But it's at least in theory pretty easy to address those concerns without falling into blanket opposition.  The way to do it would be to return a portion of the proceeds from any carbon tax as a flat feebate (which could ideally even form the basis of a guaranteed minimum income program, if you really wanna dream big), or to use the proceeds to lower sales taxes.

(To be clear, I would totally support a financial transactions tax in general- but it makes a lot more sense for the revenues from that to go towards bolstering the stability and equity of our financial system instead- boosting the FDIC's reserves, bolstering SEC enforcement, making student and small business loans more affordable, that sort of thing.  You get better results that way.)

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

[traininthedistance]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

I definitely skimmed over that part.  But trust me... TNF is not in the pockets of the Kochtopus

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Once people are fed, clothed, and sheltered... THEN they have the time to worry about the environment.

And if it takes more fossil fuels being burned to raise the poor out of poverty... then so be it.

[barfbag]

I think gas taxes hurt the average person filling up their tank for their family.

Yes, they do - to the extent the "average person" is living in the suburbs/ exurbs without adequate access to public or other means of transport (especially bicycles). Just as that "average person" is hurting the environment and/or contributing to the US' excessive production of CO².

Of course, raising gasoline taxes shouldn't be done as a stand-alone measure, but as part of an ecological tax reform, which returns (part of) the revenue back to citizens. In Germany, the revenue from raising fuel taxes in the late 1990s was used to reduce mandatory pension fund contributions, and to reduce income tax on lower and middle-classes. Since in Germany, mandatory pension funds payments are to equally shares paid by the employer and the employee, this decreased labour costs and helped to reduce unemployment. Income tax credit for commuting to work (don't know if that exists in the US as well) was also increased. Furthermore, part of the revenue went into programs for improving public transport, constructing bicycle path networks within and towards cities, building park & ride areas on suburban railway lines, and promoting car-sharing of commuters.
In the US, I could. e.g., imagine putting some of the revenue into financing mandatory health insurance and Medicare.

Another important feature would be to not increase the gasoline tax immediately, but gradually and with pre-announcement (in Germany the increase was phased over five years, from 1998 to 2003), so people can prepare for it, e.g. by buying fuel-efficient cars or relocating closer to their workplace / public transport. A nice side-effect is an increase in purchases of new cars,  which helps to stimulate domestic employment. In Germany, new car sales between 1998 and 2001 were some 10-15% higher than during the years before the gasoline tax increase (see diagram below).

I've heard of giving revenue back to the citizens being used by electric companies who use solar panels. I'd like to see more of it being done.

[bedstuy]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

I definitely skimmed over that part.  But trust me... TNF is not in the pockets of the Kochtopus

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Once people are fed, clothed, and sheltered... THEN they have the time to worry about the environment.

And if it takes more fossil fuels being burned to raise the poor out of poverty... then so be it.

As a society, we decide to tax and subsidize all kinds of things.  These choices always have a larger impact on people who are on the bottom rung of the ladder because they have no economic cushion. So, a tax on fuel is not at all unique in that respect.  Rather, your argument is an argument against taxing anything.       

Yet, burning fossil fuels produces negative externalities.  When someone drives a car, they don't adequately pay for the pollution they produce.  Thus, we have subsidized fossil fuels in this country so as to lead to non-socially optimal overuse and overproduction.  Gas taxes don't even lead to internalizing the cost of fossil fuel use because we use them to build free public roads for private cars.  So, really we're in effect subsidizing fossil fuels when we should be pricing the negative externalities from their use. 

We could gradually allow our taxes on fossil fuels reflect their actual negative externalities and subsidize other goods required by poor folks so as to leave them no worse off.  And perhaps some poor people would be worse off, like those who commute long distance via car.  But, that's just how the cookie crumbles.  Nobody has a right to have their specific inefficient lifestyle subsidized by the rest of the country.

[barfbag]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

I definitely skimmed over that part.  But trust me... TNF is not in the pockets of the Kochtopus

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Once people are fed, clothed, and sheltered... THEN they have the time to worry about the environment.

And if it takes more fossil fuels being burned to raise the poor out of poverty... then so be it.

As a society, we decide to tax and subsidize all kinds of things.  These choices always have a larger impact on people who are on the bottom rung of the ladder because they have no economic cushion. So, a tax on fuel is not at all unique in that respect.  Rather, your argument is an argument against taxing anything.       

Yet, burning fossil fuels produces negative externalities.  When someone drives a car, they don't adequately pay for the pollution they produce.  Thus, we have subsidized fossil fuels in this country so as to lead to non-socially optimal overuse and overproduction.  Gas taxes don't even lead to internalizing the cost of fossil fuel use because we use them to build free public roads for private cars.  So, really we're in effect subsidizing fossil fuels when we should be pricing the negative externalities from their use. 

We could gradually allow our taxes on fossil fuels reflect their actual negative externalities and subsidize other goods required by poor folks so as to leave them no worse off.  And perhaps some poor people would be worse off, like those who commute long distance via car.  But, that's just how the cookie crumbles.  Nobody has a right to have their specific inefficient lifestyle subsidized by the rest of the country.

IF we were to settle for such taxes, then I think it should be based on usage rather than income. Those who use the earth's resources should pay more. I still think cap and trade is a much better way to do things than taxes on carbon, oil, gas, etc. Would you go for solar panels? What of recycling? I forgot to mention it earlier in the thread.

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10176217/The-underground-forests-that-are-bringing-deserts-to-life.html

This is an excellent story about how counter-intuitive techniques in land restoration in the Sahel are wildly successful.  The Sahel region is greening even in the face of what have been some historic droughts.

Farming in the Sahel region probably isn't much different than farming in a place like the western Great Plains.  Rainfall is patchy and unpredictable... but with good land use techniques, even dry times can produce a good crop.

This kind of thinking... being conservators of the environment... is what is leading an African economic boom that is seeing poverty fall sharply in just the past several years.

Is the age of the African Lion economy about to begin?  The amount of good that would do for the state of humanity would be profound.

[bedstuy]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

I definitely skimmed over that part.  But trust me... TNF is not in the pockets of the Kochtopus

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Once people are fed, clothed, and sheltered... THEN they have the time to worry about the environment.

And if it takes more fossil fuels being burned to raise the poor out of poverty... then so be it.

As a society, we decide to tax and subsidize all kinds of things.  These choices always have a larger impact on people who are on the bottom rung of the ladder because they have no economic cushion. So, a tax on fuel is not at all unique in that respect.  Rather, your argument is an argument against taxing anything.       

Yet, burning fossil fuels produces negative externalities.  When someone drives a car, they don't adequately pay for the pollution they produce.  Thus, we have subsidized fossil fuels in this country so as to lead to non-socially optimal overuse and overproduction.  Gas taxes don't even lead to internalizing the cost of fossil fuel use because we use them to build free public roads for private cars.  So, really we're in effect subsidizing fossil fuels when we should be pricing the negative externalities from their use. 

We could gradually allow our taxes on fossil fuels reflect their actual negative externalities and subsidize other goods required by poor folks so as to leave them no worse off.  And perhaps some poor people would be worse off, like those who commute long distance via car.  But, that's just how the cookie crumbles.  Nobody has a right to have their specific inefficient lifestyle subsidized by the rest of the country.

IF we were to settle for such taxes, then I think it should be based on usage rather than income. Those who use the earth's resources should pay more. I still think cap and trade is a much better way to do things than taxes on carbon, oil, gas, etc. Would you go for solar panels? What of recycling? I forgot to mention it earlier in the thread.

Well, a carbon tax or a gas tax is sort of by definition an excise tax.  So, it would be based on usage rather than income.  I agree cap and trade is a better way to regulate pollution at the level of stationary sources and industry.  Excise taxes are better for raising money and impacting the behavior of consumers.

What about solar panels and recycling?  The major issue on solar panels is stopping the anti-competitive trade practices of China.  Recycling is a local issue but should certainly be encouraged.  We ought to focus on wasting less energy, products, space and reusing what we have though, rather than recycling.  Americans waste an obscene amount, live in way too big houses and drive way too much in general.

[barfbag]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10176217/The-underground-forests-that-are-bringing-deserts-to-life.html

This is an excellent story about how counter-intuitive techniques in land restoration in the Sahel are wildly successful.  The Sahel region is greening even in the face of what have been some historic droughts.

Farming in the Sahel region probably isn't much different than farming in a place like the western Great Plains.  Rainfall is patchy and unpredictable... but with good land use techniques, even dry times can produce a good crop.

This kind of thinking... being conservators of the environment... is what is leading an African economic boom that is seeing poverty fall sharply in just the past several years.

Is the age of the African Lion economy about to begin?  The amount of good that would do for the state of humanity would be profound.

This is what I like to see. Man living off of the land. It's energy efficient and cost efficient which means money is saved and our economy benefits so long as there is the same level of revenue being produced. I once saw a house at a campground I used to go to as a kid where all of it's power came from recycled sewage. I'm not suggesting we go that far or that we can't have electricity. What I'm saying is such recycling and quality land usage could help make our country and world a better place.

[barfbag]

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Poor people are far better for the environment than wealthy first-worlders who eat red meat nearly every night and commute forty miles to work so that they can afford their 3000 square foot house on a half-acre of barren land in the automobile slums.

Poor people - even those in the developed world - consume less energy, they use less stuff, and they tend to be far more careful about throwing things out unnecessarily or letting anything go to waste. They travel less often; many have never even set foot on an airplane. It's the global 1% - which includes plenty of "middle class" Americans - that's terrible for our land, water, and air.

Robert Kennedy is bad for the environment too. He flies everywhere in a helicopter.

[barfbag]

I meant RFK Jr.

[traininthedistance]

Eh, RFK Jr. is way worse than a hypocrite- he's an anti-vaxxer, ergo a brain-dead embarrassment to anyone who cares about the environment.  I'm okay with hating on him in particular.

The general populist right-wing line of "Al Gore lives in a big house, therefore caring about the environment is stoopid" is, of course, a disingenuous distraction of the worst kind, and ought to hold no water with anyone.