Skip to main content

View Diary: Putting a Price on Carbon -- Polluting must No Longer be Free (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks for your well reasoned arguements koNko (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko

    I get that you are against C&D plan,
    you have told be that much before.

    What I still don't get is what you're FOR?

    Is it a Carbon Tax?
    Or what you call:  "Tax + Feed-In Tarrif"
    (link?)

    Now it sounds like you're advocating
    Import Taxes too -- to level the Green Playing Field?
    (a noble sentiment)

    We'll be very lucky to get any of the existing Carbon Pricing plans to pass,

    Which is why I like the C&D plan --
    Because, in my estimatation, it has the BEST chance of ACTUALLY Passing --

    Not because it is socially inequitable in its distribution of economic pain.
    Since when was THAT a precondition, in our current Economic Systems?

    Equity -- never had it.  Probably never will.
    Not in our lifetimes anyways.

    Peace koNko
    I look forward to reading your Diaries on this Topic.
    you definitely have the material for it.

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:48:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  For (0+ / 0-)

      I definately support carbon pricing; it is essential in any case to establish market regulation mechanisms and to recover some of the cost of carbon to society.

      What follows, is how best to use the revenue to promote clean energy.

      I don't think there is a single formula or solutions, but rather a budle of measures that must be taken and different stages of development.

      The main point is this money needs to be invested in clean energy capacity; consumers do not product power, they consume it, so handing the money drirectly to consumers makes no sense. for example, suppose a utility A has mixed carbon/renewable generation verses uitility B. In the short term, utility a is put at disadvantage since they must shoulder some high capital investment, increasing their cost. So where is the incentive? If you hand consumers money, it does not help utility A to lower their cost, so they are, in effect, penalized. On the other hand, if they can get feed-in tarrifs for the clean energy produced until their cost is reduced to parity (by depreciatin of the capital assests), then the consumer is sheltered (price for clean energy was not increased).

      To jump start local markets for clean energy, carbon taxation and clean energy feed-in tarrifs have proven to work well, to help clean energy projects survive until they can produce and lower depreciation on assets to the point they can turn a profit. So this can be a temporay or term grant to clean energy projects; once they produce in parity they no longer need the tarrifs.

      The other places carbon revenues should be used are obviously to fund, to some degree, R+D and to provide grants or loan garuntees to producers of clean energy and energy conservation technology/equipment, to mass-transit and as grants, tax rebates or low cost loans to consumers to improve their energy effciency (including self-generation where that works).

      Some other essential ingredients are national energy standards and codes, in particular building codes that mandate new construction be energy efficient, and in energy efficiency/emissions regulations for businesses, including rental properties.

      One special point I would like to rase as well is the renuwables rally require smart grids to operate to full potential. this is a lesson learned in China; we have raced to install quite a lot oc renewable capacity and learned that beyond a certian level in a given area, if there is not a smart grid then the power produced when renewable are operating at maximum effciency is often wasted, so now this problem is being addressed in planning and project rules, but converting to smart grids takes years (in an existing grid).

      In fact, on American company do very well in China now is American Superconductor, who make power management systems tailored for renewables; they are a big winner in wind projects teming with several windmill producers. Another is First Solar, who are leaders in grid-connected pv Solar and won the largest project in China (and the world) Davos City Solar Plat, because their power management effciency is the best in the industry, eanabling them to beat Suntec (China's largest) to capture this project.

      I don't think there is a perfect model to implement clean energy yet, it's highly complex and situation dependant, so the world is feeling it's way and some policy flexibility is very essential.

      I'm intending to write a diary to tackle the subject of the global politics of carbon. This is the present stubling block of the COP negotiation process. Originally, I was intending to write this as a prelude to COP-15 but was too busy at the time. That's lucky, because I don't think it would have had much of a receptive audiance then. Since then, much has changed and I think people are becoming more aware of the problems and complexity of the situation, and that not only do we need global cooperation to the extent it can be managed, but leading nations need to lead and work together in a constructive way since they have benifited the most economically from the carbon economy and have some responsibility for the problems.

      "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

      by koNko on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:48:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One afterthought (0+ / 0-)

      This may interest you. One thing China is now doing with polluters, including companies that fail to meet energy effcicency and emissions standards is confiscation of profits.

      While Obama took a bold move to pressure BP to set aside funds (something I applauded) the controvesy wheter this was leagal is interesting. I think it was; he did not force them by law, but pursuaded them (by what means I'd like to know) to do so, so it was actually volentary.

      But now in China there is the legal basis for the government to do so and to hold top executives  criminally responsible for the consequences of poolition and accidents, and it fact, in several recent mining disasters excutives have been aprehended and put to trial, while a few others have become fugitives.

      If the BP disaster had hapened in china today, I'm pretty sure Mr. Tony would be in the dock and Western governments would be screeming about the authoritarian practices of the chinese government, but the Chinese people sure support this.

      Why shouldn't corporate excecutives be responsible for corporate actions, expecially if corporations are to recieve the rights of people?

      "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

      by koNko on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:01:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site