Comments on: Light bulb on the Carbon Tax

By: sean

sean — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:12:18 +0000

Bill,
I've seen the magazine ads you're talking about- Chevron religiously has a huge spread right in the front of WIRED. These ads are their penance for fucking things up in the way that Pillip Morris now has to do anti-tobacco commercials. Funny thing is there are studies that say these anti-commercials actually have the reverse effect. The market doesn't fix itself when the incentives are still improperly aligned. To predict how any system will evolve you only need to look at the start condition and the grooves that are in place.

The idea isn't to force carbon-based businesses into bankruptcy- that helps nobody. it's to force them to change. Doing anything short of altering the economics so it's financially impossible for them to succeed by continuing on the current trajectory is failure. Think about it- if you were sitting on a goose that laid a black egg every year of $6BN in profit, how tenaciously will you defend that position?

And the defense of "man may not be to blame" is no justification to do nothing either. Who cares why it is getting hotter, really? If it's determined that the warming is going to ultimately destroy our civilization are we really going to waste one minute quabbling about who started it when we could spend that time trying to cool it down?

Bill, i don't know if you remember this post from 5 yrs ago-> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cms.cold-fus...
but had I followed your advice to "settle" take the safe, predictable, traditional path of a 9-to-5, the incredible company we're building would not exist.

I appreciate your input but dare to dream man. I'm not giving Al a free pass here- read the comment above yours. I pointed out he has investments in a huge number of green tech companies and stands to benefit more than anyone if the world embraces this movement. But shouldn't he? It's not like he's invested in the atom bomb. To me the fact he's put devoted his entire life and his money full force to what many believe is THE way to avert catastrophe - I think that's laudable, not mercenary. Money chases value and what more valuable contribution than to avert disaster.

That post you cited just plays the blame game- so what if man only represents a fraction of the cause? If the result is that we all perish, let's forget blame and fix it. And if there are legitimate scientific papers that show it's really no big deal, please link to those so I can get the other side of this story.

sean

By: sean

sean — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:28 +0000

Keith,
I stand corrected- apparently the idea that there’s a 15-year breakeven on the cost of producing solar cells is just FUD that I overheard and perpetuated. I looked it up and found this article which debunks it. Apparently solar has roughly the same “energy balance” as gasoline->

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/794/

“energy balance” in this context isn’t a perfect fit since the solar cells don’t contain the energy that we extract but the idea that it takes 15 yrs to pay for themselves in terms of cost of producing the cells is apparently total crap. my bad for repeating it without fact-checking.

sean

By: Keith

Keith — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:30:45 +0000

I’ve never heard about solar yielding a net loss before…please forward me something that shows that. Obviously it is going to require some energy to produce a solar panel as it requires energy to produce pretty much anything, but I would have guessed it’s pretty minimal. I know from an economic standpoint, it currently takes a long time to get the payback and actually save money, but from a carbon energy standpoint, i would think the payback would be very fast…are you sure you’re not mixing up the economics with the energy payback?

By: sean

sean — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:47:56 +0000

Keith,
ahh yes the Tree Hugger song. You grill me on that and I’ll bust out some of your old Severed Piece lyrics ;-) The lyric was actually:

“If we weren’t supposed to burn them then why are they made of wood? If we weren’t supposed to cut them down, why is it that a saw works so good?”

ummmm yeah, so i guess I’ve grown up a bit since that one… Still a fun song to poke fun at the Sierra Club fanatics but watching the TED talks with Gore and hearing the whole “no peer-reviewed journal has disputed global warming and it’s detrimental effects” has been a wake-up call.

I’ve heard that it actually takes a good deal of energy to produce the solar technology so it ends up yielding a net loss and doesn’t pay itself back for something like 15yrs. So driving a bunch of people towards solar right now could actually be a detrimental thing in the short-term. My guess is the solution is going to be something around fission/fusion with splitting H20. My dad has a friend who is doing some promising work in that area using aluminum and salt water as a catalyst- completely reusable energy that runs from what looks like a Propane tank bolted on your house. really interesting.

sean

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:20:27 +0000

While I don’t disagree with a carbon tax, I find it funny that “light bulb on the carbon tax” is coming from the same guy that wrote a song called “hug a tree for me” in which he makes fun of birkenstock wearing baby seal loving ozone layer protecting environmentalists. My favorite line from that song went something like – “if it wasn’t meant to be chopped down, why is it made of wood?” Joking aside though, i think tax incentives encouraging people to put solar panels on their houses is the way to go. I hear right now, in many states, people are actually dis-incentivized to do so because the utilities (which are a government sanctioned monopoly) often charge you fees for doing this and don’t compensate you for the excess power you generate.

By: Bill Brown

Bill Brown — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:42:01 +0000

That’s funny that you should remember that response. I think about it often when I read your blog. Only probably not the same way you do.

The problem with your statement about how who’s to blame isn’t important is that it is terribly important. If the earth is warming regardless of what we’ve done, then that would suggest that cutting carbon production by 90% as Al Gore desires is a futile effort. If the earth is going through a natural cycle, then we should either spend our resources adapting to the coming hotter environment or figuring out how to ameliorate conditions.

And I’m sorry, but did you link to the peer-reviewed scientific papers that support Gore’s catastrophic forecast? Or is Gore credible enough because of his contributions to basic scientific research on the subject? That’s the thing that really rankles me is that everyone I’ve met just takes An Inconvenient Truth at face value.

It says that sea levels will rise by 20 feet (I couldn’t find the time period for this). But the IPCC report says it’s more likely to be 0.49 feet by 2100 (page 751):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

Also, I can’t find anything in it that says warming by 2100 is going to be greater than 5° F. Well, at least nothing that goes beyond “possibly.”

My basic point is that we should really be sure before we act so drastically as what you and others are suggesting. We don’t need to do something for action’s sake. There are very real costs involved and it’s easy to play armchair dictator with other people’s lives and money.

By: Mouse

Mouse — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:53:30 +0000

Doesn’t this tax include, taxing the humans, for exhaling co2? I understand the part about taxing the objects that emmit the gas, but what about me… Does’t this idea include taxing the human race, for breathing?

By: Calvin

Calvin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:27:05 +0000

What would prevent corporations from passing that ‘tax’ burden to their customers and mitigating the impact on their bottom line?

By: sean

sean — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:26:43 +0000

Bill,
I’ve seen the magazine ads you’re talking about- Chevron religiously has a huge spread right in the front of WIRED. These ads are their penance for fucking things up in the way that Pillip Morris now has to do anti-tobacco commercials. Funny thing is there are studies that say these anti-commercials actually have the reverse effect. The market doesn’t fix itself when the incentives are still improperly aligned. To predict how any system will evolve you only need to look at the start condition and the grooves that are in place.

The idea isn’t to force carbon-based businesses into bankruptcy- that helps nobody. it’s to force them to change. Doing anything short of altering the economics so it’s financially impossible for them to succeed by continuing on the current trajectory is failure. Think about it- if you were sitting on a goose that laid a black egg every year of $6BN in profit, how tenaciously will you defend that position?

And the defense of “man may not be to blame” is no justification to do nothing either. Who cares why it is getting hotter, really? If it’s determined that the warming is going to ultimately destroy our civilization are we really going to waste one minute quabbling about who started it when we could spend that time trying to cool it down?

Bill, i don’t know if you remember this post from 5 yrs ago-> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cms.cold-fusion.user.azcfug/3378
but had I followed your advice to “settle” take the safe, predictable, traditional path of a 9-to-5, the incredible company we’re building would not exist.

I appreciate your input but dare to dream man. I’m not giving Al a free pass here- read the comment above yours. I pointed out he has investments in a huge number of green tech companies and stands to benefit more than anyone if the world embraces this movement. But shouldn’t he? It’s not like he’s invested in the atom bomb. To me the fact he’s put devoted his entire life and his money full force to what many believe is THE way to avert catastrophe – I think that’s laudable, not mercenary. Money chases value and what more valuable contribution than to avert disaster.

That post you cited just plays the blame game- so what if man only represents a fraction of the cause? If the result is that we all perish, let’s forget blame and fix it. And if there are legitimate scientific papers that show it’s really no big deal, please link to those so I can get the other side of this story.

sean

By: Bill Brown

Bill Brown — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:47:46 +0000

There are very few who dispute that global warming is occurring. What is contentious is the degree to which man is responsible and the level of catastrophe that results from the warming. I think it’s hard to say how much we’re responsible because there is a case to be made for a natural cycle, but it’s decidedly far from settled as to what we can expect to happen from this warming.

I think the best resource for this subject is Climate Skeptic and this recent entry really boils it down. If he is right (and I think he is), then the future isn’t nearly as bleak as Al Gore et al. would have us believe even if we were to do nothing different.

That said, I think the carbon tax is the wrong solution. The market is already working on addressing the situation: you can’t read a magazine without some advertisement describing how some company is reducing its carbon footprint and similar examples abound. Introducing a tax to attack the problem would just cause dislocation and malinvestments; forcing carbon-based businesses out of business is not a good idea.

As for replacing the income tax with the carbon tax, corporate income tax receipts for 2006 totaled $354 billion. If that’s your target, you’ll find plenty of businesses that would support you 100% and lobby Congress with all their might because they would see their tax bills evaporate. And there’d be plenty of other businesses that would quietly go out of existence because the tax would fall disproportionately on them. Imagine the consequences of that. Waving your hands and saying that someone will come up with a solution isn’t an answer.

Finally, you’re skeptical of anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming because they’re just in the pay of the oil companies but you give Al Gore a free pass. Why is that? He stands to gain so much more than any doubter has ever been paid should his view of global warming prevail and the carbon tax be enacted. I mean, aside from the prestige he’s gotten with the Nobel and the Oscar, he’s going to be rolling in it should the investments that he’s shilling for pan out. Also, I’m pretty sure that his bluster has never been peer-reviewed either.