Here is Eric's introduction to the interview:
Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst, has a new book out called The Climate Fix in which he argues several points:Have a look, and let me know if you have any questions!
1) Science has sufficiently made the case that climate change is a significant threat that requires action.
2) Neither the public nor politicians will accept economic contraction for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions.
This he calls the "iron law of climate policy," and from my reading the book supports this notion pretty well.
3) Cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy and therefore violates the iron law. Furthermore the cap-and-trade-style program envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol has not worked to accelerate carbon emission reductions in Europe.
4) There simply aren't good policy options now available to address climate change, and there haven't been since the problem was identified.
5) Modern energy technology falls far short of what's needed to address climate change.
6) The best potential solution is a slight tax on carbon that would be all but unnoticeable to the public but would generate billions of dollars for much-needed research into alternative energy resources, technologies such as batteries and carbon sequestration.
Overall the book provides a good explanation of why cap-and-trade policies probably will fail on a global scale, and does an very nice job of outlining the magnitude of the challenge of decarbonization. It is enormous in the face of rising energy demand.
27 comments:
Point (1) is vague. Climate 'Science' has achieved corruption, politicisation and bias in the scientific process, rather than providing hard evidence to implicate man in climate change/global warming/global cooling/climate disruption (delete as appropriate according to the latest nomenclature). Climate changes naturally, which can present both threats and benefits. Any 'action' based on the belief that attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2 results in predictable climate control or influence is doomed to fail.
I suggest that the book title should have been 'The Energy Fix' or is that the title of any sequel?
'Addressing climate change' would realistically be restricted to adaptation where practical and possible.
Roger, I posted this at the Chronicle as well:
Regarding this quote from above: "The best potential solution is a slight tax on carbon that would be all but unnoticeable to the public but would generate billions of dollars for much-needed research into alternative energy resources, technologies such as batteries and carbon sequestration."
The above statement indicates the typical scientist’s naiveté that taxes can be “directed” to a special fund where the income will be used only for the “good.” In reality, whatever funds actually end up in R&D after said funds have been thoroughly churned by the bureaucrats would simply increase dependence on government aid. Government-directed pies in the sky would get funded based upon which group has the best (richest?) lobbyist.
The governments of the world are already spending vast sums on renewable R&D. If the technology is needed, the free market will find it. Government involvement will only slow the process, by directing the funds in a political manner rather than a rational manner.
Regards,
Greg in Houston
-1-Paul Biggs
You obviously haven't read the book;-)
-2-diane staff aka Greg in Houston
Governments are already neck deep in energy, to the tune of $557 billion(!) per year in subsidies for fossil fuels. Libertarian fantasies are exactly that, sorry ;-)
Roger,
Your reference to IEA $557 billion fossil fuel subsidies is extremely misleading because the vast majority of those subsidies are paid by third world governments like China and Iran ($100 billion is by Iran alone!)
I would really like to see an hoenst accounting of fossil fuel subsidies in the US and Europe but I have not found one. The IEA has not released the detailed report and other reports by green organizations deliberately inflate the numbers by including things which cannot legimately be called subsidies. Do you know of a credible source on the topic?
In the US, most fossil fuel "subsidies" are in fact tax breaks (such as expensing well drilling in the year the expenditure occured) that other manufacturers enjoy as well. (Can't speak for subsidies in other countries.) And the "subsidies" aren't R&D subsidies per se, but production incentives.
Renewable energy (not R&D) is subsidized on a BTU/BTU basis about 10 times what fossil fuels are.
Look at the EIA subsidy list here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
I am not a Libertarian or an anarchist, but I do believe in less government rather than more, and fossil fuel subsidies, to the extent that they make unprofitable ventures viable, should be abolished as well.
Greg (Don't know why the google account gives my wife's name!)
-4-Raven
Thanks for the comment. The $557B is indeed global, and as there is a global energy market, Indonesia's (to take one example) fuel pricing impacts your gas prices.
Here is a report on US gov't subsidies:
http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358
Anyway you slice it, governments are all wrapped up in energy (consider that the largest oil companies in the world are state enterprises).
-5-Greg
Subsidies won't help expand access or make energy cheaper unless they serve to stimulate innovation.
The government role in innovation policy is of course an issue on which reasonable people disagree. However, you can put me down in the camp of people who think that government has an important role to play in supporting and indeed directing innovation in support of public goods -- like health, agriculture, military and, indeed, energy.
Innovation policies can be done poorly or well. I'd prefer that they are done well. But the fact that they are sometimes done poorly doesn't eliminate the justification.
No, I haven't read it yet.
I just finished reading 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' which is a verifiable, referenced forensic investigation into the double murder of palaeoclimatology and statistics in order to support the false claim of unprecedented modern warming.
-8-Paul
Thanks, let me know what you think if you get to it ... it is also a whodunnit;-)
Roger (I have morphed from "diane" to Greg in Houston!)
I am doubtful that internal Indonesian fuel prices impact fuel prices in the US anymore than 60 cent/gallon Saudi gasoline affects the price of gas in the US.
If they exported fuel at that price, it might be a different story.
However, I am willing to be educated!
Roger,
Thanks for the link but it appears to be another report which fudges the numbers in order to make fossil fuel subsidies look worse than they are.
From the chart that goes with the report:
"Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the
Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil."
The "Foreign Tax Credit" is an absolutely essential element of tax policy which is available to all firms. It ensures that multinational companies are not taxed multiple times for the same income. It is not a subsidy since the firms still pay tax but the tax does not go to the US government.
I also agree that subsidies in other countries increase the global demand for oil and have the effect of *increasing* oil prices in rich countries. This means it is anti-subsidy from the perspective of the consumer even if it increases the profits of the oil companies.
-10-Greg in Houston
I hope that the morphing was painless;-)
The IEA thinks that removing fossil fuel subsidies would have a fairly significant effect on demand:
www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/energy_subsidies_slides.pdf
If so, then this would have an effect on your gasoline prices.
Here also is a literature review from the IISD:
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/effects_ffs.pdf
Sorry about that, when you said Indonesia, I thought you meant something more specific.
Anyhow, on the IEA website I found this: "When G20 Leaders met in Pittsburgh in September 2009, they agreed to 'rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption'."
So - who decides what is "inefficient," what is the definition of "subsidy," and what is the definition of "wasteful." Are there no inefficient renewable subsidies? (e.g., ethanol).
Finally, I think they might be confusing the term "demand" with "availability." Demand is the "amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price." (See citation below)
If availability (or in other words supply) goes down, demand - and therefore prices - go up, and the net amount you and I spend on a unit of energy will not go down. At the very best, it will be the same, and in all likelihood it will be higher.
http://www.investorwords.com/1396/demand.html#ixzz11bBF6OBo
-13-Greg in Houston
What the G20 agreed to do and what they did are different things;-)
I think the argument works the other way round than you have it ... if fossil fuels were efficiently priced (ie., higher, without subsidies), then people in many places would use less. And if use were to be inelastic then there would be pressure for lower energy prices (and thus innovation and efficiency gains).
-14-Roger
Ahhh, the old chicken and egg argument! But if price goes up, demand does indeed go down. And if the price for energy goes up, the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and the demand for everything goes down.
And then with efficiency gains, price effectively goes down and guess what - demand goes up again!
Gotta go earn some $. Good discussion and thanks.
diane staff said... 2
"The governments of the world are already spending vast sums on renewable R&D. If the technology is needed, the free market will find it"
I personally place more faith in the markets then governments, however their are exceptions.
Case in point - carbon fibers. If we want to save a lot of fuel we need to make vehicles lighter.
The aircraft industry has adopted carbon fiber to replace steel and aluminum. The fuel bill for a 787 is enormous compared to the cost of the aircraft. It's not unusual for an airplane to travel 10,000 miles in a day.
The fuel bill for an automobile is comparatively small, except for high end 'status' vehicles the cost of using aircraft grade carbon fibers is prohibitive.
One doesn't need aircraft grade carbon fiber in a car, one could use a much lower grade. The carbon fiber makers won't invest in producing 'automotive grade' carbon fiber because their is no market. The automobile manufacturer's don't use carbon fiber because affordable automotive grade carbon fibers don't exist.
Hence, a chicken or the egg problem.
IMHO Resolving 'chicken or egg' problems is a proper role of government.
Roger,
I have looked hard and I do not see that "Science has sufficiently made the case that climate change is a significant threat that requires action". I truly would be interested in why you think that is so. I do agree that some arguments can be made on the subject, but it appears to me that better ones can be made on the other side. The second point is likely true, but if the proposed problem is not valid, that is a good thing.
1) Science has sufficiently made the case that climate change is a significant threat that requires action.
****
Environmentalists believe global warming is dangerous, scientists don't.
From a wonderful Irish TV comedy.
Father Dougall is a young,simple minded priest who doesn't understand that religious scepticism is bad for business.
Bishop Facks: So, Father, do you ever have any doubts about the religious life?
Father Dougal: Well, you know the way God made us all, right, and he’s looking down at us from Heaven and everything?
Bishop Facks: Uh-huh.
Father Dougal: And then His son came down and saved everyone and all that?
Bishop Facks: Yes.
Father Dougal: And when we die, we’re all going to go to heaven?
Bishop Facks: Yes, what about it?
Father Dougal: Well, that’s the bit I have trouble with
Bishop Facks: Dougal, You are a priest. Belief in God is not an option.
Father Dougal: Come on, you don't believe in that old nonsense, do you ?
Roger,
Great interview.
Eric is easily one of the best of the journalists trying to cover climate issues in a serious way.
Now I am going to have to actually pull your book out of my 'pending' stack and read it......
Roger
For the life of me, I cannot understand how you can put yourself forward as a neutral source of policy advice when you are a Senior Fellow of an environmental pressure group, The Breakthrough Institute.
'Our goal is to accelerate the transition to a world where all 6.5 to 9 billion of us can enjoy secure, free, prosperous, and fulfilling lives on an ecologically vibrant planet'.
It has also something called 'A Plan for Global
Warming Preparedness' which is based on hurricane Katrina, which hardly chimes with your views.
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Global_Warming_Preparedness_AE.pdf
Almost everything on the website has an intellectual boldness and grandiosity I would have loved when I was seventeen, but again doesn't fit with your straight forward style.
"The Era of Small Thinking is Over," represents the aspiration to break from the ever-narrowing logic of complaint-based issue organizing, which puts thinkers and advocates into thought silos."
I assume that comes directly from the skateboard of Michael Shellenberger.
-19-eric144
Thanks for the comment, but where did I put myself forward as a "neutral source of policy advice"? I wouldn't make such a claim.
I like the Breakthrough Institute, they do good work and are making a difference.
Roger is the synopsis #1 above a true summary of your thesis? Also, it does raise eyebrows to see a researcher promoting a tiny tax that would wind up in the researcher's bank account.
Further, tiny, introductory taxes have ways of becoming big taxes (US income tax started this way). The tiny tax is a non-starter. I envision a world of abuse of such funds.
(have not read your book and probly won't if you are advocating global taxes)
Am a skeptic at heart though.
-22-HARDYCROSS
Thanks for the comment. If you read this blog, you well know that I do not think that science compels action. So Berger's short summary is not how I would phrase things. If you want to see how I do phrase things, I do have a chapter on the science (the first in the book) and it is mostly available for free preview from Amazon.
Using today's energy as a source of income to pay for tomorrow's is at the core of the recommended approach to both expanding energy access and decarbonizing. A global tax is one route, but not the only one. This interview does not get into my discussion of policy jujitsu and obliquity.
But for those arguments, you will have to read the book. Of course, if you are worried about encountering ideas that you may not like, it is probably best not to read it ;-)
Hi Roger,
You write that, "Libertarian fantasies are exactly that, sorry."
Greg in Houston wrote that, "The governments of the world are already spending vast sums on renewable R&D. If the technology is needed, the free market will find it. Government involvement will only slow the process, by directing the funds in a political manner rather than a rational manner."
Your position is instead that, "The best potential solution is a slight tax on carbon that would be all but unnoticeable to the public but would generate billions of dollars for much-needed research into alternative energy resources, technologies such as batteries and carbon sequestration."
But given the fact that you say that federal governments already susidize fossil fuels by $557 billion, what evidence do you have that the governments won't spend the money generated by the small tax on things that won't reduce carbon emissions at all?
For example, you yourself support spending money on carbon sequestration. But what evidence do you have that research on carbon sequestration will be significantly better than burning the money that would be spent on carbon sequestration as a renewable fuel? ;-)
In other words, what evidence do you have that carbon sequestration can be made so inexpensive that it's less expensive than burning the fuels and simply letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere, given the fact that you say that energy should not be made more expensive?
P.S. I can agree that the market alone may not solve the "problem"...especially if the "problem" is keeping atmospheric CO2 below 500 ppm CO2 equivalents. But I think your point that governments spend $557 billion on subsidies for fossil fuels argues AGAINST governments being a part of the solution, rather than a continuing part of the problem. If governments were really interested in solving the problem, why wouldn't they long ago have redirected even 50% of that $557 billion to better batteries, photovoltaics, and liquid fluoride thorium reactors (which are wayyyy better than carbon sequestration)?
I've already signed on to read the book, time permitting. Just one comment for now: it seems as though this alternative proposal is made with the idea that a "small tax" on fuel that will be "hardly felt" is politically more feasible than cap and trade. But in the comments here and certainly at the Chronicle, it appears that such a proposal is meeting the same sort of resistance that cap and trade receives. As an aside, I always think it's funny that folks refer to cap and trade as "cap and tax" since this totally misunderstands the policy. But what it demonstrates is that a carbon tax or fuel tax of any kind in the name of promoting environmental policies (however those policies are framed) will meet the same sort of resistance from the same sorts of constituents and representatives.
So, given that this tax and invest plan is not much more palatable politically, there must be some great arguments to show that it's much better... Of course, I haven't seen those.
I prefer cap and charade rather than cap and tax as a more accurate description of the reality of cap and trade. It's along the same lines as how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" became "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
I've had an email from amazon.co.uk telling me that 'The Climate Fix' will be released on 14th October and the price will be £18.04.
Post a Comment