Comments on: The decarbonization story and why a carbon price beats technology breakthroughs http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:37:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Arthur http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-11397 Arthur Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-11397 Joe, Wasn't the point of Pielke's article that the decarbonization is assumed by the IPCC, even though recarbonization has been seen as of late? I agree with you that deployment is essential. Pielke may draw the wrong conclusion about the IPCC underestimating the task of stabilizing carbon, but I think there is an indeed an arguement to be made for them underestimating it. Joe, Wasn’t the point of Pielke’s article that the decarbonization is assumed by the IPCC, even though recarbonization has been seen as of late? I agree with you that deployment is essential. Pielke may draw the wrong conclusion about the IPCC underestimating the task of stabilizing carbon, but I think there is an indeed an arguement to be made for them underestimating it.

]]> By: Peter Wood http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-11006 Peter Wood Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:47:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-11006 The question of what to do with the money raised from a carbon price (such as from auctioning permits in a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme) is an important one. Like any consumption tax, a price on carbon will be regressive to a certain extent, so some of the money raised should be spent on compensating people with low incomes for increased prices in electricity, fuel, and greenhouse gas intensive commodities (such as beef and aluminium). This could be done by raising the threshold above which people pay income tax, or by increasing welfare payments, or both. Of course, the amount that someone is compensated should not depend on the amount of energy or carbon that they individually use, because that would defeat the purpose of a carbon price. If people on low incomes were not compensated, then it would be very difficult politically to make the deep reductions in emissions that are necessary. There are some areas where emissions are difficult to measure, making it difficult to incorporate these areas into an emissions trading scheme and maintain the integrity of the scheme. I'm thinking in particular of emissions in land use, land use change and forestry. This sector also has great potential for reducing emissions, and good policies that reduce emissions in this sector can have immense other environmental benefits. Therefore, some of the money raised from a carbon price should be spent on reducing emissions in this sector, through activities such as reforestation and avoided deforestation. Finally, there is also a good case for spending some of the money raised from auctioning permits on research, development, demonstration, and possibly deployment of low emissions technologies. As well as renewables, this could include better buildings, energy efficiency, and so on. Measures such as deployment of smart meters, which would address market failures that lead to less energy efficiency could also be included. The question of what to do with the money raised from a carbon price (such as from auctioning permits in a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme) is an important one.

Like any consumption tax, a price on carbon will be regressive to a certain extent, so some of the money raised should be spent on compensating people with low incomes for increased prices in electricity, fuel, and greenhouse gas intensive commodities (such as beef and aluminium). This could be done by raising the threshold above which people pay income tax, or by increasing welfare payments, or both. Of course, the amount that someone is compensated should not depend on the amount of energy or carbon that they individually use, because that would defeat the purpose of a carbon price. If people on low incomes were not compensated, then it would be very difficult politically to make the deep reductions in emissions that are necessary.

There are some areas where emissions are difficult to measure, making it difficult to incorporate these areas into an emissions trading scheme and maintain the integrity of the scheme. I’m thinking in particular of emissions in land use, land use change and forestry. This sector also has great potential for reducing emissions, and good policies that reduce emissions in this sector can have immense other environmental benefits. Therefore, some of the money raised from a carbon price should be spent on reducing emissions in this sector, through activities such as reforestation and avoided deforestation.

Finally, there is also a good case for spending some of the money raised from auctioning permits on research, development, demonstration, and possibly deployment of low emissions technologies. As well as renewables, this could include better buildings, energy efficiency, and so on. Measures such as deployment of smart meters, which would address market failures that lead to less energy efficiency could also be included.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10994 Earl Killian Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:28:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10994 Robert said, "unless we find a way to tackle CO2 emissions head-on": I think that is exactly what many of the people in the US are trying to do. Unfortunately our national government is AWOL (or worse), but I hope that can be reversed in 2009 (it depends primarily on how our Senate elections go, IMO, since it takes 60% to do anything there). Are not US state laws that mandate reduced CO2 emissions (e.g. 30% by 2020, 80% by 2050) not a head-on tackle attempt? Some 18 states have caps: http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/emissionstargets_map.cfm I am most familiar with California, but the nice thing about the above map is that Americans can click on their own state to see what is going on. Robert said, “unless we find a way to tackle CO2 emissions head-on”: I think that is exactly what many of the people in the US are trying to do. Unfortunately our national government is AWOL (or worse), but I hope that can be reversed in 2009 (it depends primarily on how our Senate elections go, IMO, since it takes 60% to do anything there). Are not US state laws that mandate reduced CO2 emissions (e.g. 30% by 2020, 80% by 2050) not a head-on tackle attempt? Some 18 states have caps:
http://www.pewclimate.org/ what_s_being_done/ in_the_states/ emissionstargets_map.cfm
I am most familiar with California, but the nice thing about the above map is that Americans can click on their own state to see what is going on.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10970 David B. Benson Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:17:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10970 I request everybody use the word 'fossil' when referring to decarbonizatin, etc. Using biomass is using carbon and doind so the (very close to) carbon-neutral. Nothing wrong with that. I request everybody use the word ‘fossil’ when referring to decarbonizatin, etc. Using biomass is using carbon and doind so the (very close to) carbon-neutral. Nothing wrong with that.

]]> By: John Mashey http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10967 John Mashey Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:57:57 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10967 Consider: - going all-out on efficiency of buildings, infrastructure, and vehicles - investing fossil energy in building renewables as fast as we can - doing everything we can to stretch the use of oil&gas - building infrastructure that still makes sense with much higher oil+gas prices Do we really care whether we do such things - for economic reasons, i.e., to lessen the GDP-flattening seen in Bob Ayres' pitch, page 46: http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/news/documents/robert_ayres.PPT or what one finds in the Hirsch Report. I.e., to avoid driving the economy off a cliff - or for climate reasons To avoid driving the cliimate off a second cliff. The real difference comes with coal, where the first one would say "burn coal" and the second one says "phase it out as fast as possible", i.e., Earl's scenario. But really, I'd claim that a whole lot of actions are the same. Consider:
- going all-out on efficiency of buildings, infrastructure, and vehicles
- investing fossil energy in building renewables as fast as we can
- doing everything we can to stretch the use of oil&gas
- building infrastructure that still makes sense with much higher oil+gas prices

Do we really care whether we do such things
- for economic reasons, i.e., to lessen the GDP-flattening seen in Bob Ayres’ pitch, page 46:
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/ news/ documents/ robert_ayres.PPT
or what one finds in the Hirsch Report.

I.e., to avoid driving the economy off a cliff

- or for climate reasons

To avoid driving the cliimate off a second cliff.

The real difference comes with coal, where the first one would say “burn coal” and the second one says “phase it out as fast as possible”, i.e., Earl’s scenario. But really, I’d claim that a whole lot of actions are the same.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10963 Robert Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:28:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10963 Earl, The problem is that the renewable energy would most likely be IN ADDITION to fossil fuel energy, besides being highly dependant on it for manufacture and deployment. I think that unless we find a way to tackle CO2 emissions head-on (i.e. globally decide to burn less, and eventually none, leaving much in the ground) we won't be tackling the problem at all. The main reaction that high fossil fuel prices are having is to focus politicians attention on domestic energy security, controlling inflation and heading off all the attendant problems of crashing house prices etc. Very little talk this week about climate change, at least in the UK. US Crude broke $113 today for the first time. Earl, The problem is that the renewable energy would most likely be IN ADDITION to fossil fuel energy, besides being highly dependant on it for manufacture and deployment. I think that unless we find a way to tackle CO2 emissions head-on (i.e. globally decide to burn less, and eventually none, leaving much in the ground) we won’t be tackling the problem at all.

The main reaction that high fossil fuel prices are having is to focus politicians attention on domestic energy security, controlling inflation and heading off all the attendant problems of crashing house prices etc. Very little talk this week about climate change, at least in the UK. US Crude broke $113 today for the first time.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10958 Paul K Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:05:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10958 "Most likely the world’s power grids will be revamped" What are the nuts and bolts of that? There is no doubt the next ten years will see an explosion of solar in the desert southwest and wind on the Montana and Dakota plains. “Most likely the world’s power grids will be revamped”
What are the nuts and bolts of that? There is no doubt the next ten years will see an explosion of solar in the desert southwest and wind on the Montana and Dakota plains.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10954 Earl Killian Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:34:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10954 Robert, I see no problem in using CSP energy to produce more CSP infrastructure. Why should this be a problem? Also, the transition from a high-carbon to low-carbon (and eventually to zero carbon) economy will not take place overnight. When I think about it, I see 30 years as being the minimum transition period. During the transition, the easiest substitutions will be made first. Most likely the world's power grids will be revamped. In the U.S. today we have 49% coal and 20% natural gas. First the coal plants will be shut down and primarily replaced by efficiency (2005 coal power was 1956 TWh and 1.944 Gt CO2, and there were 1634 TWh of efficiency opportunities). Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. can provide the remaining 322 TWh that coal produces today, and also the extra TWh needed for population growth and the energy required to replace gasoline (about 900 TWh). Efficiency, population growth, and renewable energy substitution will happen concurrently over (my guess) about 30 years. After coal is gone, we'll take on natural gas (which is about one third the CO2/kWh of coal). In parallel in the transportation sector we will be electrifying our passenger vehicles and our rail lines. We'll eventually get to the point where 90% of passenger miles are powered by the grid, which by this time will be low-carbon. We'll probably use agricultural waste to create biofuels that fuel non-electric transport (the 10%) and non-rail freight (e.g. class 8 trucks powered by algae biodiesel). Once we've done these things we're not done, since we have to figure out how to get rid of the CO2 from concrete, steel, fertilizer, etc. production. And then once we've done that we need to turn on the systems that start removing CO2 from the atmosphere to return to safe levels (we are already over safe levels, so we need CO2 removal). The only question in my mind is whether starting today allows all this happen soon enough to prevent the worst. But nothing in this scenario seems undoable with today's technology. Robert, I see no problem in using CSP energy to produce more CSP infrastructure. Why should this be a problem? Also, the transition from a high-carbon to low-carbon (and eventually to zero carbon) economy will not take place overnight. When I think about it, I see 30 years as being the minimum transition period. During the transition, the easiest substitutions will be made first. Most likely the world’s power grids will be revamped. In the U.S. today we have 49% coal and 20% natural gas. First the coal plants will be shut down and primarily replaced by efficiency (2005 coal power was 1956 TWh and 1.944 Gt CO2, and there were 1634 TWh of efficiency opportunities). Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. can provide the remaining 322 TWh that coal produces today, and also the extra TWh needed for population growth and the energy required to replace gasoline (about 900 TWh). Efficiency, population growth, and renewable energy substitution will happen concurrently over (my guess) about 30 years. After coal is gone, we’ll take on natural gas (which is about one third the CO2/kWh of coal). In parallel in the transportation sector we will be electrifying our passenger vehicles and our rail lines. We’ll eventually get to the point where 90% of passenger miles are powered by the grid, which by this time will be low-carbon. We’ll probably use agricultural waste to create biofuels that fuel non-electric transport (the 10%) and non-rail freight (e.g. class 8 trucks powered by algae biodiesel). Once we’ve done these things we’re not done, since we have to figure out how to get rid of the CO2 from concrete, steel, fertilizer, etc. production. And then once we’ve done that we need to turn on the systems that start removing CO2 from the atmosphere to return to safe levels (we are already over safe levels, so we need CO2 removal).

The only question in my mind is whether starting today allows all this happen soon enough to prevent the worst. But nothing in this scenario seems undoable with today’s technology.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10953 Paul K Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:44:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10953 While recent events indicate that prises may rise on their own to sufficient levels, we should get a little hung up on how carbon gets its price. Unlike other mechanisms, cap and trade does not have probable negative side effects. Taxes should not be considered. Regulation and incentives are likely more important than price. Cap & Trade is not nebulous. The Lieberman-Warner bill is a specific cap/trade structure. While recent events indicate that prises may rise on their own to sufficient levels, we should get a little hung up on how carbon gets its price. Unlike other mechanisms, cap and trade does not have probable negative side effects. Taxes should not be considered. Regulation and incentives are likely more important than price. Cap & Trade is not nebulous. The Lieberman-Warner bill is a specific cap/trade structure.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10951 Robert Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:13:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/the-decarbonization-story-and-why-a-carbon-price-beats-tech-breakthroughs/#comment-10951 Just to elaborate a bit further... Yes, in theory, putting a price on carbon should make people choose alternatives. The doubt in my mind is whether the obvious alternatives (PV panels, wind turbines etc) can actually exist and proliferate in a carbon vacuum. Carbon is deeply ingrained in all aspects of manufacture and deployment and a complex system of carbon pricing would likely mask the underlying continued carbon binge. I still think that the only way to reduce fossil fuel use is to extract less. If that means progressively reduced standards of living then tough. Just to elaborate a bit further… Yes, in theory, putting a price on carbon should make people choose alternatives. The doubt in my mind is whether the obvious alternatives (PV panels, wind turbines etc) can actually exist and proliferate in a carbon vacuum. Carbon is deeply ingrained in all aspects of manufacture and deployment and a complex system of carbon pricing would likely mask the underlying continued carbon binge.

I still think that the only way to reduce fossil fuel use is to extract less. If that means progressively reduced standards of living then tough.

]]>