Comments on: Another Test for the Shills on the Hill http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:53:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Gary http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16906 Gary Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:40:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16906 Forget tax credits! How are we going to find money to provide incentives to be earth-friendly. I think we should impose laws in cities that require companies to build green building. Everybody should be doing their part in helping the earth. The goal for each individual is to reduce their carbon footprint even if it means starting out by bringing reusable bags to the grocery stores. Let's impose laws like banning plastic bags in 2010. Let's also make renewable energy affordable. Renewable energy is astronomically expensive to purchase. No more offshore drilling as well. We really need some drastic changes. Forget tax credits! How are we going to find money to provide incentives to be earth-friendly. I think we should impose laws in cities that require companies to build green building. Everybody should be doing their part in helping the earth. The goal for each individual is to reduce their carbon footprint even if it means starting out by bringing reusable bags to the grocery stores. Let’s impose laws like banning plastic bags in 2010. Let’s also make renewable energy affordable. Renewable energy is astronomically expensive to purchase. No more offshore drilling as well. We really need some drastic changes.

]]> By: jcwinnie http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16903 jcwinnie Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:26:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16903 "Do the 535 elected leaders in the United States Congress have what it takes to help America solve its energy and climate crises?" No. Next question, Bill. “Do the 535 elected leaders in the United States Congress have what it takes to help America solve its energy and climate crises?”

No. Next question, Bill.

]]> By: Mark Shapiro http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16866 Mark Shapiro Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:59:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16866 John, Peyton, Bill, Simple political reality: subsidies (on solar, wind, or anything) are much easier to pass than taxes (on coal, oil, gas, or anything). No rationality is needed. Economists seem to agree that a carbon tax would be the economically efficient way of shifting away from fossil fuels. As citizens we should push for that (as Gore does in his recent speech). For a sometime libertarian who shares Romm's and Hansen's view that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, the question is how to get industry to deploy all the wedges. Carrots? Sticks? Federal RD&D? A couple possible government tactics I would like to see debated: 1) stronger labeling of all energy using goods, from cell phones to hummers 2) a power tax on the above. John, Peyton, Bill,

Simple political reality: subsidies (on solar, wind, or anything) are much easier to pass than taxes (on coal, oil, gas, or anything). No rationality is needed.

Economists seem to agree that a carbon tax would be the economically efficient way of shifting away from fossil fuels. As citizens we should push for that (as Gore does in his recent speech).

For a sometime libertarian who shares Romm’s and Hansen’s view that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, the question is how to get industry to deploy all the wedges. Carrots? Sticks? Federal RD&D?

A couple possible government tactics I would like to see debated:
1) stronger labeling of all energy using goods, from cell phones to hummers
2) a power tax on the above.

]]> By: GreenCent http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16864 GreenCent Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:16:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16864 Looks like the Senate failed the test: http://greendollarsandsense.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/not-renewed-again/ Looks like the Senate failed the test:

http://greendollarsandsense.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/not-renewed-again/

]]> By: Bill Becker http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16861 Bill Becker Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:49:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16861 John, you addressed your question to Peyton, but I'd like to chime in. Some renewable technologies are indeed cost-effective and have been for eons. Passive solar, solar water heating and geo-exchange are among them. In my view, there's a weaker case to be made for tax incentives for those technologies, although incentives sometimes are justified so speed market penetration or overcome a barrier. For example, geo-exchange systems typically have much higher first costs (but lower operating costs) than conventional space conditioning and that turns many consumers away. Other renewable energy technologies -- for example, photovoltaics -- are not yet competitive with coal- or natural gas-fired electricity, except in off-grid applications. (For locations not served by power lines, it's often cheaper to install solar or wind generation than to extend the grid.) But as the price of fossil fuels increases (inevitable over the long-term because of finite supplies and increasing competition), as a carbon increment is tacked onto the price and as expensive new technologies are added such as carbon capture and sequestration for coal, and as technical breakthroughs and economies of manufacturing scale bring down the cost of renewables, more renewables will achieve "grid parity" with conventional fuels and then become cheaper. In my view, that is the point at which federal subsidies should no longer be needed -- unless, again, there's some other reason to speed market penetration. Also, as you know, when you get past the hardware and transmission costs, renewables such as wind and solar have some inherent economic advantages over fossil and nuclear fuels. Sunlight and wind are free; they are domestic and carbon-free and they don't have to employ pollution control technologies, for example. My apologies if this is all old information for you. John, you addressed your question to Peyton, but I’d like to chime in. Some renewable technologies are indeed cost-effective and have been for eons. Passive solar, solar water heating and geo-exchange are among them. In my view, there’s a weaker case to be made for tax incentives for those technologies, although incentives sometimes are justified so speed market penetration or overcome a barrier. For example, geo-exchange systems typically have much higher first costs (but lower operating costs) than conventional space conditioning and that turns many consumers away.

Other renewable energy technologies — for example, photovoltaics — are not yet competitive with coal- or natural gas-fired electricity, except in off-grid applications. (For locations not served by power lines, it’s often cheaper to install solar or wind generation than to extend the grid.) But as the price of fossil fuels increases (inevitable over the long-term because of finite supplies and increasing competition), as a carbon increment is tacked onto the price and as expensive new technologies are added such as carbon capture and sequestration for coal, and as technical breakthroughs and economies of manufacturing scale bring down the cost of renewables, more renewables will achieve “grid parity” with conventional fuels and then become cheaper. In my view, that is the point at which federal subsidies should no longer be needed — unless, again, there’s some other reason to speed market penetration.

Also, as you know, when you get past the hardware and transmission costs, renewables such as wind and solar have some inherent economic advantages over fossil and nuclear fuels. Sunlight and wind are free; they are domestic and carbon-free and they don’t have to employ pollution control technologies, for example.

My apologies if this is all old information for you.

]]> By: SteveRuyle http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16860 SteveRuyle Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:48:57 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16860 Sheesh, I need to learn to proofread before I press post. That would be reliant and debate. Sheesh, I need to learn to proofread before I press post. That would be reliant and debate.

]]> By: John McCormick http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16859 John McCormick Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:45:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16859 Peyton. Not. John McCormick Peyton. Not.

John McCormick

]]> By: Peyton F. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16857 Peyton F. Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:33:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16857 John - Thanks for the response. Economies of scale will make renewable energy cheaper and cheaper as more projects are installed. Renewable energy also diversifies our energy sources, which prevents fossil fuel energy suppliers from holding us hostage when they decide to raise prices. This is apparently one of the reasons why China is boosting its attention to renewables -- to reduce its exposure to fossil fuel sources it has less control over. Hope this helps. Peyton John – Thanks for the response. Economies of scale will make renewable energy cheaper and cheaper as more projects are installed. Renewable energy also diversifies our energy sources, which prevents fossil fuel energy suppliers from holding us hostage when they decide to raise prices. This is apparently one of the reasons why China is boosting its attention to renewables — to reduce its exposure to fossil fuel sources it has less control over.

Hope this helps.
Peyton

]]> By: John McCormick http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16848 John McCormick Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:46:01 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16848 Peyton, Here is what seems to confuse me about the renewable tax credits: if, as you mentioned, renewables bring with them, lower energy costs, why do they need a tax credit? Or, is it the tax credit that makes them cheaper? And, at $100+ per ton of estern coal and $9+ mcf of natural gas, when will renewables no longer need that tax credit? Can you help me here? John McCormick Peyton,

Here is what seems to confuse me about the renewable tax credits:

if, as you mentioned, renewables bring with them, lower energy costs, why do they need a tax credit? Or, is it the tax credit that makes them cheaper? And, at $100+ per ton of estern coal and $9+ mcf of natural gas, when will renewables no longer need that tax credit?

Can you help me here?

John McCormick

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16847 Joe Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:45:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/another-test-for-the-shills-on-the-hill/#comment-16847 Mark -- Thanks. Fixed! Mark — Thanks. Fixed!

]]>