Politically Viable Ways to Reduce Global Warming

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
December 12, 2008

Matt Stoller is gloomy about the two most prominent policies for reducing carbon emissions and hence global warming:

One is a carbon tax, in which you put a price on carbon.  The other is called a cap and trade system, where you put an overall economy-wide cap in carbon emissions, issue carbon credits, and let groups trade the 'right to pollute'.

The carbon tax has never been viable because it would take a huge bite out of consumers and businesses. (The only way to make it viable would be to use it to replace other widely-hated taxes like the sales tax, income tax, or payroll tax.)

Cap-and-trade is being tried in Europe, and it's a fiasco

since designing an emissions credit system from scratch, loopholes and all, is proving to be a boon for lobbyists and polluters while not doing so much for carbon emissions. 

Neither of these approaches are viable because they've been designed by green-eyeshade economists, not creative public policy experts. What would creative policies look like? Something like this:

Source Annual Impact
in Degrees		 Reduction strategies Politics Cost to
cut 25%		 50% 75%
Autos   Raise gas tax
Tax credits for higher MPG cars		 Set $2 floor?      
Trucks   Switch to natural gas Pickens Plan?      
Power Plants   Conservation - consumer
Conservation - businesss
Wind, solar, wave/current		 Appliance stds
72 degree rule
utility buy-back		      
Farms   Ban/tax nitrogen fertilizers        
Livestock   Capture/tax methane        

1. Identify the sectors that make the biggest contribution to the problem

2. Identify high-impact strategies for reducing output in each sector

3. Calculate the politics and real-world costs of implementing those strategies, each of which is unique - and variable over time.

This is where political creativity comes into play. For example, when the price of gasoline is $2, it would be politically feasible to set an arbitrary price of $2.50 and tax the difference; but when the price goes over $2.50, the entire gasoline tax could be suspended. I believe Americans would understand and support a flexible approach like that.

Here's another example: while wind power is popular, it would take a big investment in long-distance powerlines to transport it from the Great Plains to urban consumers. But new technologies for capturing wave and water-current power can be installed in or near urban areas (which are always on rivers, lakes, or oceans), eliminating those transport costs.

There are lots of creative ideas floating around to reduce global warming; what's needed is for practical political thinkers to quantify and compare those ideas, and figure out which can be "sold" most easily in our complex political system.

Comments

Stockholders are the key

  • pepawjoe0943's picture
    pepawjoe0943
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
12/14/08
12:42pm

There are simply TOO MANY politicians holding huge concerns in the oil industry to expect any serious effort to make any significant changes in our energy program. Our goals in this area were set by people with huge interests, and they certainly have not decided to take monmey out of their own pockets. It's a simple case of not rockin the boat.
Too me a so called 'carbon tax' is useless rethoric. A necessary pollutor in in Pittsburg, Pa, cannot compete with a necessary polutor in Waco, Tx.
The American People are taxed, then taxed again, and for good measure, we get taxed again. It would make more sense to let everyone pay a fair share, after the pollutors meet enviroment standards for their industry, and their georgraphic region. Determined by someone out side the federal government with little or no interest in their energy holdings.
Promises, rethoric, more promises, no actions, more rethoric, more commitees, more of nothing but talk. Until we stop running the mouths, and actually do something, the same old problems will remain and get worse. No one wants to make any changes, all they are really concerned about is their gain, and let the tax payers keep throwing money in the dark hole. And let the taxpayers pay for what these companies need to do. After all, it appears that they are not responsible for cleaning up their own messes.
God, please have mercy for the American taxpayers.

Carbon tax is a fraud

  • jgaltng's picture
    jgaltng
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
12/14/08
11:38pm

Carbon tax and cap and trade are more government programs that steal the people's money and produce the OPPOSITE results of what the say.

Also carbon tax is very insidious because it is proposed to be world wide, and we would need a world wide agency to enforce it, Can you say New World Order. Don't be tricked.

We should talk about achieving ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Obama says that is his top priority, however he says it will take 10 years (conveniently after he would be out of office).

As a Computer Consultant I know there are technologies available today to give us Clean, Renewable ENERGY in a year even (especially if we took just a fraction of what is being spent in Iraq).

I am not talking about BS stuff like bio, nuclear, coal or more oil, I am talking about wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and electric/magnetic (also hydrogen using Tesla methods not conventional methods). The best thing about these is that they are abundant, completely clean, and renewable.

Obama needs to be constantly reminded that this is the top priority and not allowed to slack off on this. Look up Tesla and geothermal energy and check out some videos on it, also zeitgeist:addendum for more info.