Monday, January 15, 2007
Is there a carbon tax in the future?
Shortly after the election I suggested that national security conservatives and anti-carbon greens should get together and support a carbon tax, and do it quickly, while oil prices were relatively low. Well, the Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby thinks just such a move may be in the offing, courtesy of the Bush administration. His column is interesting also for its clarity on a point of widespread rhetorical confusion: Energy "security," lower dependence on foreign oil, and reductions in the output of carbon are not necessarily compatible objectives. Read the whole thing over lunch.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 15, 02:42:00 PM:
How about a HOT AIR TAX on all politicians like AL GORE make them pay a special tax everytime they opened their mouths becuase thats the biggist source of HOT AIR
By 
SR, at
Mon Jan 15, 02:58:00 PM:
Malaby's assertion that global warming is much more crucial (with the implication that it is more attainable) than energy independence reveals what a lack of perspective he and those he speaks for actually have.
If Bush uses climate hysteria to get to energy independence, he continues to be misunderestimated by his detractors as always.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:04:00 PM:
But corn-based ethanol is only marginally better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse emissions.
Anyone making statements like this is a moron. The organic carbon cycle is a closed loop system.
By SR, at
Mon Jan 15, 08:38:00 PM:
Purple,
What does that assertion mean? Where is the inorganic source of carbon in gasoline?
By SeekerBlog.com, at
Mon Jan 15, 08:51:00 PM:
I thought a carbon tax was good policy - particularly as I thought a suitable tax could put the market price for old-style coal generation on a par with clean coal power such as IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle). I'm keen to convert the wave of soon to be built dirty coal plants into IGCC or similar plants, including nuclear -- before it is too late. Carbon taxes may still be good policy, though there are complexities I wasn't aware of. In particular, as Tigerhawk points out in this post:
Energy "security," lower dependence on foreign oil, and reductions in the output of carbon are not necessarily compatible objectives.
I.e., there has been a lot of confusion/entanglement of objectives in this highly political arena - confusion that may be largely responsible for the lack of progress in what are separable objectives -- needing quite different solution strategies. A good example is the new work coming out of The Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado -- this is one of the few sources I know of where you can find non-political, objective thinking on controversial policy issues -- e.g., Kyoto, energy policy, etc. The Pielke/Sarewitz chapter contribution to the to-be-published "Controversies in Science and Technology, vol 2" is very timely to Tigerhawk's post. Similarly, I've just been the Pielke/Sarewitz chapter, which distills their research into a clarifying dichotomy:
• you want to reduce atmospheric carbon loading
• you want to protect people from climate - think Katrina and Bangladesh
These are not the same thing -- entangling them results in no progress on either objective. See my post for the details and resources.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jan 15, 11:42:00 PM:
What does that assertion mean?
It means, obviously, that dead plants rot.
Their carbon, equally obviously, is not locked inertly underground as with oil or coal.
60M year old carbon is NOT a participant in today's carbon loop unless we release it.
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 07:00:00 AM:
By SR, at
Tue Jan 16, 09:28:00 AM:
Purple: I stand corrected, I think.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5760/506
Ethanol is a wash environmentally, but just might reduce our dependence on Gulf oil. Estimated $40 bil. transfer of wealth from emirs to US farmers is nothing to sneeze at either.
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 11:37:00 PM:
"Energy security is mostly a dumb objective, but climate policy is crucial."
Bwahaha.
