“JR – Re “even a very high price for carbon simply isn’t going to drive a high enough gasoline price to change behavior”:”

“Right. Trying to change behavior is hard. Changing technology is a lot easier”

Easier, AND profitable. Excepting fossil fuel giants.

Right. Trying to change behavior is hard. Changing technology is a lot easier.

Suppose the carbon price is multiplied ten-fold, so the marginal incentive is $2/gal, not 20 cents/gal. Also suppose that the revenue is all used to subsidize fuel in proportion to energy content. So if fossil fuel makes up 90% of the market and renewable biofuel (or renewable grid-connected electricity) makes up 10%, then the net charge on conventional fossil fuel would be 20 cents/gal, while the net subsidy on renewable fuel would be $1.80 per gallon-equivalent energy unit. (The net charge on “unconventional” fuel, like tar sands, would probably be over $1/gal.) The consumer would see comparatively little price impact at the pump because fuels are blended and because competition would tend to levelize retail prices. So there would be little behavior-modification incentive, but there would be a $2/gal technology-forcing marginal incentive — roughly equivalent to $200/ton. Can you imagine any plausible scenario under which Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade system would create a $200/ton incentive? (For that matter, can you think of any plausible policy rationale for Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade system?)

Massachusetts is increasing fares and cutting service on public transit because they couldn’t get a gas tax (11 cents would have done the trick and I think 27 cents was mentioned at one point, but nothing flew). Sigh again.

Thanks for the stellar work on exposing the likes of the Chamber of Commerce, the enemies of humanity.

Massachusetts is increasing fares and cutting service on public transit because they couldn’t get a gas tax (11 cents would have done the trick and I think 27 cents was mentioned at one point, but nothing flew). Sign again.

Thanks for the stellar work on exposing the likes of the Chamber of Commerce, the enemies of humanity.

IF it’s true that the U.S. COC, and/or its official leader, is acting against responsible climate change legislation and is diminishing the importance of the matter itself, even as (if this is true) a majority of the corporations who have members on the COC Board claim in their public messages to be taking the matter seriously, then THAT is a BIG story that The New York Times should be covering on its front page, clearly, naming names.

This is a key time to get the media in gear. Joe, if that’s true, this is (it seems to me) another one of those issues that should be “pressed” and put “on the record” in terms of . . . “Hey NY Times, why aren’t you carrying this story?”

Sigh.

Jeff Huggins

Is that good or bad?

[JR: It is what it is. As I have tried to explain many times, but most people still don't get it, even a very high price for carbon simply isn't going to drive a high enough gasoline price to change behavior. The "good news," however, is that peak oil probably will. Even so, we will need very strong government policies for fuel efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles, if we want to achieve the deeper reductions that are necessary.]

A 20 cent/gal incentive is over ten times smaller than the break-even marginal incentive, considering only the benefit of fuel savings. Besides, the incentive is only applied to fuel — not to vehicle prices, where it could have greater impact. So what’s the point of including transportation in cap-and-trade?

The new vehicle emission standards, by contrast, would have marginal compliance costs of around $0.80/gal (if they are like the CA reg’s), and the regulatory incentive would apply directly to new vehicles. Unfortunately, because transportation is within the cap-and-trade system, the emission standards will not do anything to reduce total national emissions. Fuel refineries would just sell their surplus allowances to the coal industry. (So much for “market-based” emission reductions.)

Science says no more carbon emissions AND start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Now. We have a 40 year lag before seeing evidence of our curtailing.

Big Carbon is just cementing it place in future commerce – when it should be disappearing completely.

Carbon fuel combustion should only be allowed to manufacture and deploy clean energy. Then it should disappear.