Recent Comments:
AutoblogGreen for 04.09.08 {Autoblog}
Apr 9th 2008 10:46AM You can't be serious. That Zenn car has a very short range and a top speed of, what, 35 mph? That's not even competitive with the old EV1. They say they're working on a highway-capable version for 2009, but it's not available now.
Robert Reich wants to know: How much cash would you accept for some dirtier air? {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2007 10:33AM EDH, that's not a "difference" with a cap-and-trade system. That's just one way to start a cap-and-trade system. An auction to determine the initial distribution of permits is probably a better way to start than with distribution of free permits, but both are still cap-and-trade. The advantage of the auction is that the revenue can be used to displace distortionary taxes (Al Gore proposed displacing payroll taxes). Both an auction and free distribution can achieve the same level of pollution reduction.
frank78, yes, real income is likely to be reduced both in the long and short run. I find it hard to believe, however, that you can't figure out what the benefit is. The benefit is reduced CO2 emissions. Similarly, the benefit of the very successful SO2 cap-and-trade system has been reduced SO2 emissions.
Chris, cap-and-trade IS a form of regulation. It is a far superior form of regulation compared to traditional command-and-control methods in that it achieves its target level of emissions at the lowest cost because of the tradeable nature of permits.
mikeinBuilding7, if it's true that some form of solar power is competitive with other energy sources then we don't need to do anything but sit back and watch solar plants pop up. The fact that there are only a few solar thermal plants appearing in the U.S., and that at least some require government funding (and I have heard that the cost is more like that of wind power than fossil fuels) suggests that maybe that time is soon, but not yet. If we were to price the negative externality from fossil fuels correctly (which can be done with a cap-and-trade system or a tax) then solar and other methods would become appropriately competitive.
More generally, I have to wonder why everyone here and in general feels free to so confidently venture opinions on economics. It's clear that most of you don't understand how a cap-and-trade system works, or what its advantages are. Yet you don't let your ignorance stop you from confidently voicing opinions on the subject. There are lots of topics about which I am ignorant, and I am careful to avoid having opinions on them. Wouldn't it be wise for you to do the same?
Robert Reich wants to know: How much cash would you accept for some dirtier air? {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2007 9:28AM Robert Reich is confused. A carbon auction is a cap-and-trade system. The auction is a way to determine the initial distribution of permits (as opposed to giving them away). It can also be shown that, under certain circumstances, a cap-and-trade system with an auction is identical to a carbon tax.
Why do people who know so little economics feel so free to speak with authority on the subject? And why do people listen to them?
Prius can't pass Georgia emissions test {Autoblog}
Apr 16th 2007 10:48PM Is it just me, or did post #20 suggest that the Priuses should be failed because they're from Japan?
Peak Oil still coming, says "Twilight in the Desert" author {Autoblog Green}
Oct 11th 2006 11:19AM Of course peak oil is coming. But like Shake Barnes says, it might not come any time soon. And even if it does...so what? So oil production peaks, and then slowly tapers off. That just increases the incentive to develop alternative energy sources.
I guarantee that when oil prices rise in the spring, the Peak Oil extremists (as opposed to the reasonable ones, who don't prophecy the end of the world) will say "look, we told you! Peak Oil is coming!" Then when they fall again in autumn they'll say "Well, maybe not this time, but next time!" Eventually they'll be right, but that doesn't make them prescient; it just makes them a broken clock.
The truth about coal and coal {Autoblog Green}
Oct 8th 2006 10:51PM Ethanol subsidies don't have much to do with inefficient markets. They have a everything to do with inefficient government policy, supporting a very high-cost and unscalable way of reducing gasoline use.
Perhaps if environmentalists stopped wasting time pushing for command-and-control regulations, there would be more support for market-based solutions. Every dollar spent requiring plants to use a specific technology, such as IGCC, is a dollar that could be spent on a general, low-cost solution. Of course, if firms want to build cleaner facilities, I don't think anyone should stand in their way, including regulatory boards.
Perhaps IGCC IS the cheapest solution. But what if it is not? A market solution does not require us to even know the answer; the market answers the question for us. More importantly, requiring IGCC (or any specific technology) gives firms no incentive to find even better solutions, whereas emissions fees or permits do. With a market mechanism, any firm that finds an even better solution can save on fees or permit purchases.
The truth about coal and coal {Autoblog Green}
Oct 8th 2006 1:35PM James,
A cleaner type of power plant IS a kind of pollution control. Any method of reducing pollution is pollution control, whether it is using cleaner burning coal, a scrubber, sequestration after combustion, or whatever. The method of emissions reduction is irrelevant, so long as emissions are reduced (and at the lowest cost). The question is, what is the cheapest way to reduce pollution? If IGCC is the best way, firms will choose it on their own, given the proper incentives.
Your second point is puzzling. Power companies are already fighting IGCC. They'll fight ANY proposal that requires some of them to reduce emissions. So if we're going to push for pollution cleanup, shouldn't we at least push for a kind of program that will reduce emissions efficiently, i.e., at the lowest cost? Why push for a high-cost pollution reduction approach, if it will face the same opposition that a low-cost approach faces?
The truth about coal and coal {Autoblog Green}
Oct 6th 2006 9:38PM "If we're going to power our EVs with grid electricty, then shouldn't that juice be as clean as possible?"
No, not as clean as possible. As clean as possible would mean using only wind and solar power, and even those create pollution during the manufacturing process for windmills and solar panels. We can't afford to be as clean as possible.
We can, however, afford to be a lot cleaner, and the best way to do that is to assign a (possibly quite high) fee to each unit of pollution, and let power companies decide the cheapest way to clean up. If they don't clean up, we can make the fees higher.
Alternatively we could used tradeable emissions permits. They have worked quite well for SO2 emissions.
Both approaches have the advantage of achieving emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost, unlike the "you must use this particular technology" command-and-control approach that the U.S. has tended to use. What if integrated gasification combined cycle plants are not the cheapest way to reduce a given amount of pollution? What if there is a cheaper way to get rid of just as much pollution? We should find it, and given the right incentives, firms will do so for us.
Forbes says Prius, Ben & Jerry's ice cream bad for the environment {Autoblog Green}
Oct 2nd 2006 11:42AM The price of the car does not reflect the quantity of resources used--it reflects the value of resources used. Resources used in producing a Prius must be lured away from alternative uses, so they must be paid their opportunity cost (at least). If a Prius is more expensive than a comparable non-hybrid car, then it must be the case that production of the Prius involves using resources (including labor, capital, and raw materials such as copper, steel, nickel, etc.) that are of greater value than resources used in other cars.
That doesn't mean the Prius isn't environmentally friendly. Certainly it is the case that it has more toxic materials in it than other cars, but it also creates less CO2 and toxic emissions than other cars. Whether it is on net helpful or harmful depends on the relative damage from these two sources (toxic components and greenhouse gas and toxic emissions).
Cougar Ace: Could some of her Mazdas be saleable? {Autoblog}
Aug 28th 2006 11:39AM VincentP, these cars are ultimately headed for Canada, so unless you live there, you couldn't get one anyway.
