An Open Letter Respectfully Submitted to Dr. James Hansen in Response to His Recent Congressional Testimony. Cross Posted from The Breakthrough Blog.
Dear Dr. James Hansen,
For more than twenty years, your scientific expertise and public statements have helped many (including myself) understand the relationship between human activity and global warming. I felt a sense of urgency as I read your latest testimony to Congress (PDF) regarding the need to curb greenhouse gases and put us on the path to building a clean energy economy. I can only imagine how frustrated you must be by the inability of Congress to pass meaningful and comprehensive energy and climate legislation. As I read your testimony it was clear that you fully grasp the scale of the energy and climate challenge and desire to implement effective solutions that will tackle it head on.
That’s why I felt totally lost when you articulated what you feel is the best way to transform our current energy system. You said, “One hundred percent dividend or fight!”
I do not understand how we will dramatically alter our energy system and spur the rapid deployment of clean, climate-safe energy sources if we rely solely on capping carbon emissions and pricing carbon while returning 100% of the dividends to Americans. Why are you issuing a divisive rallying cry around a market-based approach that has consistently failed to achieve results? A market-based approach such as Cap-and-Dividend will never solve our energy woes alone. I hope you can clarify your policy position, and are open to other solutions that will re-energize America and curb greenhouse gases.
The New York Times actually cited you as a proponent of large-scale government investment. According to The New York Times, you said that we will need the kind of government investment and support that was given when the federal highway system was created and the Apollo project was carried out:
“The transformation would require new technology as well as new policies, particularly legislation promoting investments and practices that steadily reduce emissions.
Such an enterprise would be on the scale of past ambitious national initiatives, Dr. Hansen said, like the construction of the federal highway system and the Apollo space program.”
You’re right! We most certainly will. Transforming our energy economy will require a sustained national commitment even larger than these historic examples and will require massive public investments. The question is, did you actually say this or is this a mis-representation of your views? If you did say this, how does it fit with your market-based policy solution?
The Cap-and-Dividend regulatory approach will not spur large-scale investment in new technology fast enough to rise to the challenge. Where will we get the billions of dollars needed to research, develop and deploy the vital clean energy technology you were just talking about if we return all of the funds to the American public? If you do recognize the need for major federal investments in clean energy infrastructure and technology, please tell me where we’ll get the money if auction revenues are off the table. I don’t get it. I want to understand your position, and I respect your scientific expertise, but I do not understand how Cap-and-Dividend could ever be an effective policy capable of building the clean energy future we both see as necessary.
So, Dr. Hansen, I for one am NOT interested in fighting for a Cap-and-Dividend scheme. On the other hand, an investment-based policy solution with the potential to spark lasting economic prosperity — and not just dividend checks in the mail — IS something I’m ready to fight for.
Further, the political climate in America indicates that a clean energy future is something Americans as a whole are ready to fight for – and invest in. Americans are clearly frustrated with our current state of affairs, and more open to change. But we must listen when Americans tell us what they want change on; the rising cost of fuel is the number two concern of the American public (after the economy and jobs) not global warming. It’s pretty clear that focusing on energy is a recipe for political success, and that the next president will have the opportunity to transform our energy economy and curb America’s greenhouse gas emissions.
One thing you are absolutely right about: the 2008 election is critical for the planet and time is short. Let’s make our policies clear, and get them right.
Sincerely,
Alisha Fowler
Breakthrough Generation Fellow
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Dear Alisha Fowler,
For at least a couple of weeks now, I’ve been enjoying the colorful, energetic and thoughtful conversations you and the Breakthrough fellows have been having and sharing. That’s why I totally lost it when you came out bashing such an important ally like Jim Hansen.
First of all, cap-and-dividend and heavy government investment in clean energy are not mutually exclusive.
Next, in reference to this:
“I do not understand how we will dramatically alter our energy system and spur the rapid deployment of clean, climate-safe energy sources if we rely solely on capping carbon emissions and pricing carbon while returning 100% of the dividends to Americans.”
This is how:
1. Total CO2 emissions are capped by policy then reduced each year.
2. As CO2 permits become more scarce, price rises.
3. Energy sources with lower emissions have an additional competitive advantage – creating the incentive for more investment.
4. More investment dollars shift to clean energy sources
5. Clean energy becomes cheaper than dirty energy
6. Fossil fuels fade away except for high-value applications such as petrochemicals and jet fuel.
7. We all rejoice at a market working as it is supposed to in theory – with the cost of carbon finally internalized.
8. In the meantime, a massive redistribution of wealth takes place that at the least is enough to make up for the burden of increased energy costs for the poor, and at best is a significant democratic redistribution of wealth benefiting most Americans substantially and reducing economic disparity.
What we really need to fight for is rapidly reducing the cap, and ensuring that Americans really do get 100% of the revenue – both in the form of straight cash in hand and heavy investment in energy solutions at the federal level.
Sincerely,
Alex Tinker
Alisha,
Your energy, and goal of holding our experts and leaders accountable, is fantastic. Also, you’re right, the best solution for our energy and climate woes is to invest massively in clean energy technology. To that extent, a cap-and-trade bill that includes such investments is indeed what we should put all this effort and fight behind.
However,
I disagree with your disavowal of cap-and-dividend. While we do have to avoid the rightward-moving “compromise” sort of attitude that has characterized much of congressional discourse in recent years, we have to take into account the politically overcautious windbags purporting to lead us. They’re scared that if they propose purely investment-directed legislation, the right will attack them for not considering the cost to American families and the economy. The dividend is a shield against this attack. And further, it is based on the progressive idea of common ownership of common resources: in order to pollute the planet that we all share, companies should pay all of us.
Now you’re right, 100% cap-and-dividend probably isn’t the right way to go about this; we need to quickly and intensely invest in clean tech, as you well know. So I reckon the best legislation to fight for is partially investment-directed (to get what we really need), and partly dividend-directed (to help our congresspeople actually pass it).
So we should set our sights high, but we shouldn’t dogmatically fight for something if it can’t be passed. I don’t know what can be passed in the 111th Congress, but we have to include that consideration in our advocacy work.
-Alex K-G
Alex, I think that your scheme would take a little bit too long to effect change, especially considering it’s unlikely that congress will pass a bill that will put a tight enough cap on fossil fuels to really harness the market.
One argument I’ve heard from some cap+dividend folks is that we should just transfer ALL subsidies away from fossil fuels and use those for investment. Then, the cap+dividend would provide the political capital to create a bill with some longevity. [I question whether we give enough subsidies to fossil fuels to truly build the investment ($20-30b/year?) and there's still a huge question of what happens on the international stage.]
that was addressed to the first Alex
There is way more money in the private sector than in the government, even with the massive amounts of money that would be raised from a cap scheme of any kind. That’s where big investment in renewable energy can come from – and come a lot quicker than through a government run mechanism.
The last global warming solution the government invested heavily in was biofuels and we’re seeing how that has turned out. There is a big role for government to play in solving global warming, but it’s a incorrect to suggest that Congress is going to be the major source of investment in renewable energy.
If legislation sets the cost of a ton of CO2 at a price such that other technologies–wind, solar, geothermal etc.–are competitive, the market will move faster and more efficiently toward those technologies than any government program. This was Dr. Hansen’s point, that if the economic incentives are there then the market will flex its substantial muscle.
In addition, I think he advocates a complete dividend refund to keep certain special interests (i.e. coal and other dirty energy companies) from leeching money from the program thereby keeping the market distorted. I think its certainly a possibility that if 50% of the revenue were distributed to companies claiming to be working on clean and renewable technologies that the entrenched coal lobby would be all over that money.
The problem is, for the cap to be cost competitive with say solar, it would have to be much tighter than anyone’s talking about (trading above $100/ton). Wind (with the PTC) is already cost competitive.
The other thing that I think needs to be a serious concern when we start talking about the government investing the proceeds from permit auction is: lobbyists. I don’t think of myself as any sort of paranoid radical; in fact, I think that there’s a place for lobbyists in our political system. But do you really think that lobbyists for ‘clean coal’ (gag), nuclear plants, carbon sequestration, etc. are just going to take a back seat on this one? I’m sure we’ll get some money for wind and solar, but not nearly as much as might really be needed to bring down the costs of those technologies. On the other hand, if we give the money back to consumers on a per capita basis, I think cap-and-trade becomes a much easier sell. Granted, politicians will still need to demonstrate some sort of a spine, since the pressure from inside the Beltway will still be in favor of handing out lots of free money to industry, but I think it can be done. Politicians fall all over themselves trying to come across as populist (though not too populist), and what better way then by giving every American compensation for his or her rightful stake in our air? Etc, etc.
Anyways, Dr. Hansen is the man.
Kai – I’m not so sure the cost difference for solar is fixed so high. At the rate solar is improving, it could be equally competitive in a few years.
Not being a policy wonk myself, I’ll leave the debate over the percentage of auction revenue to dividend vs. invest up to someone else, though its my great hope of course that we’ll be able to do both by ending the war and diverting the billions of dollars we’re spending there towards building a clean energy future in this country and around the world. I just wanted to write to give a gentle reminder of our place in this movement and the work that has come before us. Of course I believe in the absolute kick-ass power of youth to galvanize this movement and change the course of this country on climate change. But I believe we have to respect our elders too – this one quote seemed quite out of place to me – “As I read your testimony it was clear that you fully grasp the scale of the energy and climate challenge and desire to implement effective solutions that will tackle it head on.” Dr. Hansen is the reason we all fully grasp the scale of the energy and climate challenge, and he’s been the one sounding the alarm for the past twenty years – or since many of us, myself included, were still in diapers. He’s been sticking his neck out on this issue for a long time, and has managed to maintain his legitimacy – something that isn’t easy to do in the scientific community, but something he’s been willing to do because of his commitment to the cause. Cheers to Dr. Hansen this week – let’s help him finish the fight he started.
BTW Hansen is a climate scientist, not an economist or policymaker. He’s got some very good ideas, and perhaps the best sense of anybody in the world of what we’re in for if we don’t take urgent action. But it’s not fair to hold him to the same standards as, say, Hunter Lovins or Barbara Boxer when we talk about economics and policy.
I am no policy expert either. I’m mainly interested in learning about these policies because they will determine our future. We can transform our energy economy and curb global warming by making dirty energy expensive, or helping clean energy become cheap. I choose the latter. All I’m offering here is what I believe and feel, all that any of us can do. Anyway, I’m happy that lots of folks are commenting, glad it’s civil and here’s my response ☺ (it’s kind of long)
Phil, if Dr. Hansen is going to come out and support a policy solution, tell us to fight for it, then I think it’s fair game to question the policy and why he supports it – what’s wrong with that? It’s not discounting his credibility as a scientist at all.
Alex T.: I agree most of the last line of your comment, namely that we need to shrink the cap if we’re going to use a cap approach to decreasing emissions, and also get heavy investment in clean energy tech. on the federal level. I’m glad you’ve been reading some of the thoughts of BTGen fellows, and I’m sorry you interpreted my post as hostile in any way. I most certainly am not bashing Dr. Hansen. I made that pretty clear in my letter to him. I’d challenge you to reassess your judgment of my tone a little. To Kelly also, this post was not meant to be interpreted in that way. But, point taken since this is the mysterious blogosphere and not an in-person conversation. Things get lost in translation, especially since I’ve never had an in-depth conversation with you. To clarify: I agree he’s an important ally, the man, the hotness, the reason many care. He rocks. My questions about Cap-and-Dividend are honest, as well as my praise of him. Should we just jump on board with a policy proposal? Look at what happened with Lieberman-Warner.
About Cap-and-Dividend: Command and control approaches to solving global warming/transforming our energy economy are ineffective. The idea that there’s an effluent out there that we can regulate away when it comes to “global warming pollution” is false. It worked wonders to get the lead out of our gasoline and clean up our air but it is not going to solve global warming alone. What I felt James Hansen was saying in his testimony is that Cap-and-Dividend will do it alone and must; if that is how he feels then I feel he is mistaken. His testimony also served as a jumping off point for me to think more about Cap-and-Dividend.
Alex K-G I agree that we must consider how tough it will be for Americans as the cost of energy continues to rise. I’m still learning about Cap-and-Dividend, but the more I learn the more I feel that it is not the approach we should put our efforts behind… it is one we can build upon and take bits from as we craft an appealing and effective policy solution, and here is why I’m developing this belief:
As a market-based approach, Cap-and-Dividend sounds great, especially when you write it down in a neatly numbered list. Problems, arise, however as soon as you implement it or even take a hard look at what implementation would look like.
There are significant equity issues associated with a Cap-and-Dividend that, unless addressed, will be exploited by folks against the bill. The people impacted will be even more upset. For example, folks in coal-heavy, fossil-fuel heavy states will pay a lot more than folks in less carbon intense states like California or Oregon. To send equal dividend checks to folks in the mail would make polluting states pay for the bulk of our transition while other states would profit.
Perhaps the bottom line: hard caps on emissions and cost-containment are mutually exclusive. If we want to cap it, and cap it hard to cut carbon by 80% by 2050, then it’s going to cost a LOT. If we do that Americans will suffer more than twice the price increase of gasoline that has occurred since 2002. I don’t see how people will absorb that – or how that will be politically feasible. People are already crying “Bloody Murder!” at current gas prices and politicians are pandering with gas tax holidays and pushing to drill drill drill! Trying to make cap-and-trade appear otherwise, or actually be otherwise (i.e. with a ceiling on how high the carbon price can rise), will render the legislation ineffective. If we appease people enough to make it palatable, the cap will be much more modest and will not achieve the total reductions pre-eminent scientists like Dr. Hansen say are necessary.
I also think that we need to raise the funds for adaptation (for wildlife, humans, unavoidable consequences of climate change) in any policy solution.
We can transform our energy economy and curb global warming by making dirty energy expensive, or helping clean energy become cheap. I choose the latter. Funding clean energy development and deployment should be our top priority, for both policy and political reasons. Politically, funding innovation to reduce the price of clean energy is popular. Policy-wise, it’s better than anything else. Jamie, you say that gov. investment is historically slow but can you find examples to back that up? I couldn’t, and only found evidence to the contrary. I agree that the private sector will be key in advancing energy tech. solutions – and we must explore how we can unlock their power to transform our energy economy. I also agree Diana that we need to be aware of the lobbyists, and make efforts to ensure they don’t in all that money like we KNOW they can.
I may not have a bulletproof policy solution to offer, yet, but I do believe that Cap-and-Dividend is not worth fighting for.
Alisha, I am enjoying this discussion a lot. I think we need to talk a lot more than we are about how to make a cap/trade/auction/dividend etc. system work – because it is probably the only political feasible way to cap carbon fast enough to prevent the worst-case scenarios Dr. Hansen has warned us of. We’re at 385 and counting. In the spirit of that…
“About Cap-and-Dividend: Command and control approaches to solving global warming/transforming our energy economy are ineffective.”
Cap-and-dividend is not command and control. The C&C version of this would be assigning a certain amount of pollution as the max that could be emitted and expecting it to hold, or mandating that certain emitters emit less. It would provide no incentive for behavioral change.
“We can transform our energy economy and curb global warming by making dirty energy expensive, or helping clean energy become cheap. I choose the latter.”
The relevant thing is the relative price of clean and dirty energy. In terms of which people choose to consume, this is the same thing.
“The idea that there’s an effluent out there that we can regulate away when it comes to “global warming pollution” is false.”
It is widely agreed that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. How do you think we got rid of CFC’s?
“Perhaps the bottom line: hard caps on emissions and cost-containment are mutually exclusive. If we want to cap it, and cap it hard to cut carbon by 80% by 2050, then it’s going to cost a LOT… I don’t see how people will absorb that – or how that will be politically feasible.”
That’s why we send out dividend checks – to help people absorb the increased cost of energy and energy-intensive products. Such a re-distribution would benefit most households, on the whole.
Hey Alex T,
You write, “the relevant thing is the relative price of clean and dirty energy. In terms of which people choose to consume, this is the same thing.”
While that’s obviously true, we clearly have to consider this global challenge in a global context. We may be able to artificially increase the price of dirty energy in the United States and developed world, but are we going to bet on China, India, Brazil, etc. adopting carbon caps or taxes as well? If not, we’ve got to be pretty explicitly plan our US energy policy with a global perspective, and include a clear policy objective of driving the price of clean energy down as quickly as possible – down towards the “China Price”, the cost of coal in China (which is scarily low). Relying solely on artificially increasing the price of dirty energy in the US doesn’t do much to help us reach the China Price. Just one (pretty relevant) thought.
While I have more than a few disagreement with cap-and-dividend (really, any emissions trading scheme) I keep seeing this same line repeated by many – the whole “what about China and India….”. As one of the biggest drivers of the global economy, and CERTAINLY a major driver for the direction of industrialization in China and India, any actions the US takes will entail a global impact. I really do think we need to get our own house in order as a first priority – while multilateral international agreements may be noble – there are some serious questions to be raised about the strategic realities and effectiveness of a Kyoto-style framework being what we put our eggs in.
Most of us reading this blog are here in the US – and tackling the US’ historic and ongoing role as the largest emitter (directly or indirectly) and the driving force of unsustainable development and economic systems is a big enough task for our movement. Some simple, immediate actions (such as a moratorium on coal or Tar Sands, or massive renewable mandates) could set some major international precedents politically and economically; and the history of US “intervention” in other countries (regarding development or otherwise) doesn’t exactly hold the best track record.
I don’t Jesse is entirely saying this (though others before him have) – but it’s quite simplistic to view the costs of energy to be static and unchanging – there is no “China Price” that exists in a vacuum. The global costs of coal (construction costs for plants as well as fuel) have SKYROCKETED in recent years, and will continue to rise with or without any sort of artificial price on carbon. The costs of RE/EE are dropping rapidly (certainly with lifecycle/economy-wide/social impacts calculated are already far cheaper) – and the US taking some major action to scale up such technologies (and develop storage systems for RE) would have a profound impact on the energy options for less industrialized countries. Such precedents and scale-up in the US alone could simply make coal/nukes/fossil fuels economically unviable globally – without any sort of “articficial” price. (not that I don’t support pricing carbon via a tax of some sort- I just think it’s a very incomplete policy measure) Hell, at this point the US needs to simply CATCH UP to other industrialized countries before we even talk about leading in such measures.
The same way the price of semiconductors, integrated circuits, and microproccers plummetted with a concerted effort to make them widespread (and the backbone of the “new technology age”) – the costs of EE/RE technologies and practices could equally be brought to scale by the US alone and made irresistable to the global world.
-Matt
Jesse,
Imposing a price on carbon is not artificially raising the price of dirty energy. The price of dirty energy is artificially low because the cost of the global warming pollution is externalized.
In this case, the market has failed to set the price equal to the true cost of consumption. Dirty energy is, in fact, very expensive. Unfortunately, most of that price now is not paid in dollars by the end user, but by society as a whole in the form of pollution, and more unfairly so by the victims of fossil fuel extraction – coal miners and the communities mines are in, victims of imperialist wars for oil, citizens in repressive monarchies supported to keep it flowing, etc.
It is certainly true that the US alone cannot stop global warming. To encourage China, Brazil, India and the rest of the developing world to use clean energy, the US must play the role of R&D pioneer of clean energy technologies. To do this, these industries must be able to compete with fossil the fossil fuel industries. At present, clean energy is pitted unfairly against a fossil fuel industry which externalizes a large portion of its costs. In this “market,” clean energy is still competing, but with difficulty. We could go and just subsidize the hell out of clean tech (which I think we should do as well) but in the mean time, making carbon emitters pay the real cost of their products would be a hell of a start.
Pricing carbon will drive down the relative price of clean energy, make those industries more competitive, and spurn more development of clean tech we can export to developing countries – both alleviating the problem of their emissions and America’s declining manufacturing sector. We could keep counting the birds for a while – green jobs in America, balancing our trade deficit, creating incentives against using fossil fuels, saving money on war – the point is, this is a stone we need to throw.
Alisha, you might enjoy reading this…
http://orangehues.com/blog/2008/06/people-its-called-revenue-neutral.html
Alex, you know what I mean by “artificially” raising the price of dirty energy. I know there’s certainly a HUGE difference between the price of carbon and it’s true cost, but go ask a Chinese power company what a coal plant costs. That’s the China Price, and increasing the price of carbon in the United States – through cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or any other pricing policy – will do nothing to increase the price of carbon in China. So discussions of externalities aside, the whole point of US energy policy in an international context still needs to be driving down the costs of clean energy to first compete with coal in the United States (which can be reached faster by implementing as high a carbon price as is politically possible in the US) and ultimately the China Price (which is unlikely to be affected by any carbon pricing scheme in China any time soon).
Matt and Alex, it seems like you both see this as the goal too: making coal irrelevant, both here and abroad, by making clean energy cheap and abundant. So let’s put that at the center of our energy and climate policy, not emissions regulation or carbon pricing. To the extent that a) carbon pricing in the United States helps achieve this goal (and I agree with you Alex that it can – plus it can also help raise critical funds to “subsidize the hell out of clean tech”) and b) is politically sustainable in the US, let’s do it. But we shouldn’t lose site of the fact of that the point of all of this – carbon pricing, regulations, incentives, R&D, government procurement (which is what paved the way for the microchip revolution you mention Matt), and of it – is (or should be!) to drive down the cost of clean energy – ultimately to meet the China Price. If Hansen is right – and if we don’t ignore this kind of stuff – then if we miss the China Price, carbon pricing in the US aside, we’re still pretty hosed.
Breakthrough-
It’s one thing to have a point of view, it’s another to bash one of the leading thinkers in the climate movement. It takes a really breathtaking amount of hubris for you to lecture Hansen to stick to science and leave the policy to you.
FYI- A Cap & Dividend plan has been endorsed now by Bill McKibbon, Robert Reich, George Lakoff and dozens of others… (Whom, I assume, should also keep their mouths shout on policy and leave it to you)
A few questions about your big idea:
1. Can you tell me exactly how much public money needs to be invested to solve the climate crisis?
2. How long would we need to invest before we see these reductions?
3. Under your plan, when would we get to 350ppm?
4. Where would the money come from?
5. Who decides where to invest this public money? When are these decisions made?
Alex (and others),
This post may also help clarify where we’re coming from at Breakthrough and what we see the role of carbon pricing to be.
Sam,
Alisha can clarify as well, but speaking for myself, I don’t think we’re “bashing” James Hansen, and we’re not saying leave the policy to us either (although we’re definitely working on the policy). We’re just saying that while I trust implicitly in Hansen’s interpretation of the climate science – he’s the MAN when it comes to that – he isn’t a policy expert and we don’t have to extend him the same credibility when it comes to the policy arena — especially when he asks us to fight for a policy that has, in my strong opinion, some very serious problems. I’m not telling anyone to shut up, but I sure as heck reserve the right to question what they are saying. Isn’t that fair? Or should we just trust implicitly in our elders to figure out the policy that will shape our future?
As far as the questions you raise, those are GREAT questions, and precisely the ones we’ve assembled a team of sixteen talented young people to wrestle with this summer – as well as the ones that I’d hope many others are pondering, both young and old. As you know, those are some serious questions and I hope you’ll forgive me for not having ready answers to them right now. Our office is cranking away at them as we speak though, and if you’re interested in the answers, please check periodically at the Breakthrough Institute and Breakthrough Generation sites throughout the summer.
Of course, we all should dig into this debate, question and figure out what the best way to solve this global problem is. I’m just asking for a little respect, which could manifest itself as reading a little more into it. (Hansen has footnotes in his testimony)
The Breakthrough folks obviously have a clear point of view and all others are dismissed out of hand despite what seems to be a lack of understanding about basic economic issues or the ins-and-outs of the other ideas.
It’s quite telling that Alisha writes “I don’t understand” and “I don’t get it” about fairly basic questions.
Frankly though, the most telling thing is that you can’t answer the basic questions of when your plan would solve the climate crisis, how much it will cost, when we’d start to see reductions, etc. (This may offer a clue as to why Hansen hasn’t embraced it)
Not to be too snarky, but I would think those answers would have been figured out earlier…
Sam, can you please answer the following questions (or refer to one of those vaunted policy experts you referred to in your first comment who does):
-How high of a carbon price is politically sustainable in the United States, especially given the current political climate and concern over high energy prices?
-How much higher can the price be if we dividend the proceeds to everyone? (i.e. how much more politically popular is tax/cap-and-dividend than other alternative carbon pricing schemes?)
-At that price, how much efficiency gains will we see?
-At that price, how much clean energy deployment will we see and how quickly?
-Given the above, when will various scalable clean energy be cheaper than coal in China (without a carbon price there)?
-Given all of that, when do we get to 350 ppm?
(BTW, relying on natural net carbon sinks alone, which are about 2 gigatons C per year, if we cut emissions to zero tomorrow, we’d only reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 1 ppm per year… We’re at 385 ppm, so it’d take something like 35 years to get back to 350 if we cut all emissions to zero today. That’s not to say we’re doomed, it’s just to put the 350 “redline” in perspective, and to make us think about whether or not we’ll need to worry about upping that carbon sink figure, say by massive reforestation efforts and/or “air capture” techniques).
Finally, what did you find disrespectful about Alisha’s post? Please identify some specifics.
“The Breakthrough folks obviously have a clear point of view and all others are dismissed out of hand despite what seems to be a lack of understanding about basic economic issues or the ins-and-outs of the other ideas.”
To be clear: Breakthrough is made up of a lot of people with diverse ideas and styles, although I know we have not done the best job at portraying those differences. While we work to develop our identity, message, and policy, please try to resist the temptation to paint us all into one generalized category or dismiss our ideas based on preconceived notions of who we are.
As all of us on this blog, those of us at Breakthrough included, mull over the differences in policy and form our own, unique opinions, we need embrace the fact that we are all still learning. Hard questions should be asked of all policies on the table– if we are going to rally behind a policy, let’s get it right.
It’s important, too, to respect and encourage each other to be honest about what we don’t understand so that we can have a more productive and open conversation. I applaud Alisha’s courage in doing so. Her questions about state equity in revenue renewal are certainly valid ones, as are others’ fears about meeting necessary emissions reductions in an investment-centric approach. Let’s all display some patience with one another as we navigate the black and white and crazy shades of gray within climate policy.
Sam, I also ask you for respect. Claiming I say things like “I don’t understand” and “I don’t get it” is extremely insulting. I did not say that anywhere in my post and now feel the need to stick up for myself a little. Such comments cannot continue if we are to have the space for open, productive communication. I did not feel the need to assert that I know quite a bit about econ. and failed market-based approaches to climate change. I did not come across with a “breathtaking amount of hubris.”
What is wrong with learning about and exploring these issues together? What’s wrong with admitting that none of us have “THE ANSWER” and are passionate about getting there? I’m open to others’ ideas and thoughts in an effort to find the best policy solutions, and I do not think that Cap-and-Dividend/Tax-and-Dividend/Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax is what the answer is. No matter how you package it the outcome is the same: a carbon price (levied either through an allowance market or a fuels tax) is imposed, and a proportion of the proceeds (Hansen wants 100%) are returned to consumers.
Moving on, I liked the questions you asked in your second to last comment. We are WORKING on finding out how much a good policy solution will cost, how fast, how much, how soon, that’s what we’re passionate about. We meaning all of us. I think the discussion going on here is largely productive and part of finding the best policy solutions, let’s continue with that. I echo what Jesse articulated in this regard.
You seem to be confusing strategies (efficiency, clean energy technologies, etc.) with goals (solving the climate crisis).
My goal is solving the climate crisis and using efficiency, green energy, etc. to save the planet.
Answers (For any of these you could read either of the Barnes’ books or see the writings of Reich, McKibbon, Rockridge and others)
#1: How high of a carbon price is politically sustainable in the United States, especially given the current political climate and concern over high energy prices?
Again, I start with the goal of solving the climate crisis, so I begin with 1) how much do we need to reduce carbon to save the planet 2) what carbon price do those reductions trigger and 3) how do we make that politically viable.
One number often used is $730/ton Carbon to get to 80%– but with rising oil costs that number could rise (or drop).
MITIGATING COST IS THE REASON FOR THE DIVIDEND. Returning 100% of the auction revenue (or tax revenue) to the public protects incomes. Protecting incomes is critical to the poltical viability of any effort to solve the climate crisis. PERI did a study that showed in a Cap and Dividend system people in the first 6 deciles would get MORE money back through dividend than they pay out in increased costs (http://www.peri.umass.edu/). So, yes, the majority of people would MAKE MONEY through a dividend system.
#2: How much higher can the price be if we dividend the proceeds to everyone? (i.e. how much more politically popular is tax/cap-and-dividend than other alternative carbon pricing schemes?)
See above. I think a gradually lowering cap (gradually rising carbon cost) is the way to go.
#3: At that price, how much efficiency gains will we see? #4: At that price, how much clean energy deployment will we see and how quickly?
In a in either T&D or C&D the market would make these decisions. At the beginning, efficiency would reign because the higher energy/gas prices would force behavior changes very quickly and depolyment would follow. A great example of this works is how $4 gas created huge drops in vehicle miles traveled, along with SUV plants closing and Chavy rushing an electric vehicle (Volt) to production.
But my basic answer is: It’s the carbon reductions that matter.
#5: Given the above, when will various scalable clean energy be cheaper than coal in China (without a carbon price there)?
As soon as someone figures it out. Pricing, and phasing out carbon, in the world’s largest economy would create a powerful profit motive for figuring this out. Last year, there was $100 billion invested in green technology- creating a system that priced carbon in the US would make that explode- my personal bet is that amount will double just based on the rising oil costs we’re already seeing.
Additionally, the US would have to institute border adjustment fees on goods imported from companies with a lower carbon cost than we have. This would be a powerful incentive for exporting countries like China to create their own carbon cost system.
#6: Given all of that, when do we get to 350 ppm?
As soon as possible. The C & D plan was based on the 80% by 2050 goal, so it has us cranking the carbon valve down 2 percentage points a year for 40 years. But that % could change as the science advances. By creating a system that caps carbon & protects incomes, we’ll have the flexibility to crank down emissions more quickly if scientists say we need to.
How was Alisha disrespectful?:
She referred to Dr. Hansen’s call as divisive, she misleadingly conflated T & D with Cap and Trade, and she made several broad statements without backing them up with facts– None of which lead to a respectful debate on these important issues.
But, seriously, let me know if you guys figure out how investment can guarantee carbon reductions, what it would cost, when, etc.
Alisha,
I don’t want to dwell on this, but here are the quotes I’m referring to:
“I do not understand how we will dramatically alter our energy system and spur the rapid deployment of clean, climate-safe energy sources if we rely solely on capping carbon emissions and pricing carbon while returning 100% of the dividends to Americans.”
“If you do recognize the need for major federal investments in clean energy infrastructure and technology, please tell me where we’ll get the money if auction revenues are off the table. I don’t get it.”
I’m sorry that you felt insulted, but both passages are clearly in your post.
Also, I’m sure you understand that a Cap & Dividend or Tax & Divend system is totally different than than a Cap and Trade system– you may want to explore why Cap and Trade failed in the EU and how either system would adress those failures.
I’m glad you’re working on finding those answers, but I’m amazed that they haven’t been figured out yet. They strike me as the core questions anyone would ask when they first decide to undertake creating a climate policy.
Dr. Hanson talks about coal moratoriums, putting fossil fuel execs on trial and a need for radical action to stop climate change. And Breakthrough talks about talks about coal-fired development ending global poverty and proliferating untested technology through the private sector to stop climate change (which sounds a lot like what the execs at Exxon and Peabody say). And of course, Breakthrough’s youth fellows spend the summer using Shellenberger and Norhaus’s lines to attack actual climate activists instead of the fossil fuel industry.
Who’s future would you rather have?
I think I’ll stay with Dr. Hanson.
Breakthrough Prevails!
This is definitely not what Hansen says in his testimony. Please be accurate about your information, and see a correctly cited post: http://orangehues.com/blog/2008/06/people-its-called-revenue-neutral.html
Anonymous, thanks for your comment. Here is some clarification on this issue, also from the OrangeHues blog – in the comment section from another BTGen fellow Zach:
“Duly noted – Hansen indeed advocates “tax and dividend.” Of course, as you are undoubtedly aware, a cap is theoretically equivalent in function to a tax. The basic mechanisms underlying “tax and dividend” and “cap and dividend” are the same: a carbon price (levied either through an allowance market or a fuels tax) is imposed, and a proportion of the proceeds (Hansen wants 100%) are returned to consumers.”
My criticism is directed toward the general idea of sending carbon price revenues back to consumers, what Hansen definitely DOES advocate for, rather than using them for clean energy RD&D. Semantic nitpicking aside, this criticism applies equally well to both “tax and dividend” and “cap and dividend” schemes.