Government Responses to Climate Change

[CDarwin]

I think we've debated climate change per se to death now, so how about the proper government response to climate change (or the lack there-of, or the lack there-of of it being human induced, stipulating the existence or non-existence of various uncertainties as to the two aforementioned.)

 

I've previously stated that I prefer solutions that use the free market. It's a powerful tool and one that shouldn't be neglected. I've become pretty disillusioned with carbon markets, though. They fluctuate so much that it's difficult to for businesses to make long term plans based on the cost of carbon emissions, on the purely economic side. There is also now the much publicized problem of credits being generated in developing countries for "clean development" projects of spurious impact or that would have gone through anyway. These flood the market and depress the prices of credits. It's not an unworkable system, but it will require much more stricture and tinkering that it has been subjected to thus far.

 

I prefer a carbon tax. It will never happen in the US, but it compensates for all the problems mentioned above and all that money could be plowed into R&D for reducing emissions and adaptation. But that's just me. What do you think government (or I should say governments, because few solutions will work unless applied internationally), should be doing about climate change? Obviously no one plan will do the whole job, but which do you think will be the most important?

[Aardvark]

Government 'solutions' are generally ways to channel huge amounts of taxpayers money into the pockets of politically influential groups.

 

So far, all the government 'solutions' i have heard are worse than the purported problem. On that basis, i'd be very happy for government to do absolutely nothing.

[Realitycheck]

Free market does not accomplish anything with regards to enforcing laws or getting people to do things that they would not normally do. Federal regulations forcing people to pollute less, just like what is going on with automobile pollution. You can't make everybody just switch over at the drop of a hat, but as effective solutions gradually become affordable, transition will happen. Getting people to use lower costing solar panels will be kind of tricky, but tying it into building codes wouldn't be very difficult.

[iNow]

I believe carbon taxes will definitely be part of the overall solution, but I'm personally inclined toward a) substantial subsidies to offset installation costs of renewable energy sources, and b) tax benefits to those who make environmentally friendly decisions.

 

Things like a $2,000 write off for all homes with a given number of megawatts worth of solar panels, and a $1,000 credit to homes with more than one hybrid vehicle, and even $100 for people who recycle.

 

Make it less about punishment for bad behavior and more about reward for good behavior and learning will occur and change will become real.

[Saryctos]

More grants for solar panels on homes sounds like a very good idea. Because for many people, the turn around time for profit on a solar panel is usually longer than the average ownership period. If the Gov't could make this cost a little easier on the everyday family you would see more solar panels. The cost savings is there, just such a long term that no one does it. Already struggling to pay the mortgage, paying off credit cards, that extra 200$ a month sounds great, but the 15k(not a researched number) start up isn't exactly a crowd pleaser.

[Rev Blair]

Carbon markets and a carbon tax, as long as it's revenue neutral, both work. I'm also a big believer in credits for carbon reduction credits in the developing world, although we need stricter standards and better measurements.

 

Regulation, especially on building codes, would make a huge difference. Offset stud walls and insulated, unheated porches around doors would reduce emissions hugely in new residential construction. Requiring solar panels and things like in-line water heaters would be huge too. Requiring developers to make a certain number of geothermal homes would be fantastic.

 

In other cases we need less regulation though.

 

There is a program in Canada where you could get some small incentives for doing things like installing new doors and windows, insulating, or putting in an energy efficient furnace. The problem is that you have to pay for an inspector to come out before and after, and finish the work within a specified period of time.

 

So I've been replacing doors and windows and insulating, but I've been doing it a bit at a time. I've also been doing the work myself. As a result, the program doesn't work for me....the inspections would cost more than the the rebate. A lot of working class people are in the same position.

 

Just removing federal and provincial sales taxes on energy efficient goods and services would be a far better incentive. No inspectors required.

 

The other place we need governments to do far better is in public transit. I work from home, but two or three times a week I have to go across the city. We like to go to the bars downtown, but between the drinking and driving issue and the parking problems it's often more hassle than it's worth. I'd take a bus or LRT if one was available to me. We have no light rail here though, and the buses only run in my neighbourhood during rush hour.

 

Finally, we need government to pay for more science and related programs.

 

An example of what I mean: A farmer here in Manitoba invented a device that injects tractor exhaust into the ground as you are seeding. He claims that it increases yields and sequesters carbon, and it sounds like it might.

 

He could get no help from the government though, and no scientists to test the invention to see if it did what he claimed. He's selling it to people through word of mouth.

 

If this device actually works, it would be a major leap forward. Hell, if it only does one of the things he claims at 50% the efficiency he claims, it's still a decent invention.

 

Guys like him need a place to go though. It needs to easy (he farms full-time and doesn't have time to be messing around) and it needs to be government run so that he's not worried about losing his patent rights etc.

 

There are lots of little inventions like that out there, things that may or may not work, that need to be tested.

[Mr Skeptic]

I like the idea of taxes and subsidies much better than direct regulation. Regulations can end up requiring stupid or inefficient or even counterproductive things, are far less flexible, and more prone to abuse and loopholes. Whereas a carbon tax on all fossil fuel production, and a carbon credit on all sequestration of carbon, would allow anyone and everyone really wide latitude in dealing with problems. Also, the enforcement should be much easier and less in-your-face. You can run a hummer, run the heater with the windows open, etc, but the carbon tax will ensure that you pay for it... and the money could be used to subsidize carbon sequestration. Meanwhile, most people will be trying to minimize their carbon emissions by any means necessary, not just following the regulations. Thus, all the enforcement only needs to be done with whoever produces fossil fuels, and all the rest of us will find some way or another to comply without the government sticking their nose in our lives.

 

Only thing is, the carbon taxes and subsidies should be the right amount to achieve the desired effect; too much or too little would produce too much or too little effect. However, that is the free market solution -- people pay for the whole price of the energy they use, not just for the price of digging it up.

[bascule]

I think we should be looking at specific outmoded technologies and regulating them, particularly ones which have multiple deleterious environmental and climate effects. Incandescent bulbs and non-IGCC coal power plants are two outmoded technologies whose use should probably be coming to an end in the near future.

[PhDP]

Most CO2 emissions are caused by transportation and the production of electricity. So my solutions would be; #1 we have to reduce the number of cars on our roads, honestly, I don't know what is the best way to do it, but it has to be done. #2 Nuclear energy.

 

No... I'm not running for office

[iNow]

You don't necessarily have to reduce the number of cars if you can alter the technology on which they operate to be more renewable and less (preferably, non-) polluting.

[Phi for All]

You don't necessarily have to reduce the number of cars if you can alter the technology on which they operate to be more renewable and less (preferably, non-) polluting.

Chevron should allow their patented large-format NiMH battery technology to be used to make full electric motors instead of only gas/electric hybrids. And if they don't, I feel they should all be shot.

 

Right after we shoot the execs at General Motors for selling it to them.

[ecoli]

Tax credits to those who purchase more efficient and alternate technologies... that's about it for the federal government.

 

I think state and local governments should have a lot more say over emission standards, etc.

[iNow]

I think state and local governments should have a lot more say over emission standards, etc.

 

I appreciate the "back to what the founders wanted" ideology of this approach, but I find it somewhat strange since poor behaviors in terms of our air and environment extend far beyond arbitrary state borders on some map.

 

If North Dakota decides that it's going to burn 10 metric tons of coal for every citizen in that state, then South Dakota citizens suffer (along with scores of others far beyond the Dakotas).

 

In my mind, this shows how state level control of this issue loses sight of the bigger consequences which result from poor environmental actions, and argues in favor of more centralized standards and enforcement which extend globally (or, at the VERY least, nationally).

[PhDP]

You don't necessarily have to reduce the number of cars if you can alter the technology on which they operate to be more renewable and less (preferably, non-) polluting.

 

We have to be pragmatic. There's too many cars, especially when we consider the number of new cars in countries like China. People will have to start walking a little

 

...or get smaller cars.

[iNow]

I understand the point you're making, but if you think it's more "pragmatic" to suggest we can reduce the number of cars more easily than changing the technology on which they operate, you are sorely mistaken.

[ecoli]

We have to be pragmatic. There's too many cars, especially when we consider the number of new cars in countries like China. People will have to start walking a little

 

...or get smaller cars.

this doesn't have to be the role of government though... you can't legislate that people have to walk or bike to work. Gas prices will do that anyway. I predict that gas prices will go up to unsustainable amount before the world ends from global warming.

 

Already, survey's show that people are driving less choosing to vacation at home, etc. I myself, am planning on biking the ten miles to work, at least part of the time.

[Pangloss]

this doesn't have to be the role of government though... you can't legislate that people have to walk or bike to work. Gas prices will do that anyway. I predict that gas prices will go up to unsustainable amount before the world ends from global warming.

 

Gas prices are already having that effect, with sales of big SUVs and trucks down 25-40% almost across the board, and small, fuel-efficient cars up about the same amount. But I think there is a role for government leadership, particularly in the area of fuel efficiency standards (the recent change to how it was measured was a good step, for example), but also regulating air quality in the output, because while there's a built-in incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, there's not one to buy a less pollutive one, and we only get the side benefit of the fact that they mostly coincide.

 

I agree with iNow -- it's going to be far easier to modify the cars then to change the lifestyle. The single most embarassing statistic of American consumption is the lack of change in MPG minimums in the past FOUR administrations. More efficient cars are also less pollutive cars, and you kill two birds with one stone (or at least severely wound it). It does matter, ecoli -- had we raised those limits earlier we probably wouldn't be in a recession right now (because people wouldn't be hurting as much from the higher price of gas).

 

When you look at the difference in cost of operating a pure-electric vehicle running off grid energy, and the fact that 75% or more of that emission is vehicular, it really makes electric look like a prime solution, even if it's coal-powered. Put another way, if you replace gas with electricity and just slap a few sulfur controls you can almost solve the problem even without eliminating the coal plants. And I've heard (I think it was in a recent Nova or Frontline) that millions of cars could be recharged overnight on CURRENT production capacity because of lower energy use at night.

 

That's the thing -- it doesn't take a radical overhaul of society. Just a few changes and a little effort, really.

[iNow]

Well said, Pangloss.

[JohnB]

Perhaps subsidies for the purchase of hybrid/electric vehicles as well?

 

The Honda Civic hybrid retails in Oz from $31,990 where a small efficient Holden Barina is $13,990. Even if you save $2,000 a year in juice, it will take 9 years before you actually save a cent.

 

Electric/Hybrid isn't enough, it has to be cheap as well. Those who are most effected by rising fuel costs are those least able to afford expensive cars. They'll buy the $14,000 car because that's what they can afford.

[Realitycheck]

The latest in efficiency requirement news.

 

The U.S. Transportation Department today will propose a sweeping increase in fuel economy standards, requiring passenger cars to average 35.7 miles per gallon and light trucks 28.6 mpg by 2015, The Detroit News has learned.

 

The proposal sets a more aggressive timetable than what Congress required when it passed an energy bill in December that calls for an industry fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 for cars and trucks combined.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/AUTO01/804220375

 

We're behind schedule.

 

A primary goal of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is to enact a

comprehensive national energy policy that strengthens U.S. energy security by

reducing dependence on imported oil. Currently, the United States consumes

seven million barrels of oil more per day than it produces. Section 502 of the

Act (42 U.S.C. 13252) provides goals of a 10 percent displacement in U.S.

motor fuel consumption by the year 2000 and a 30 percent displacement in

U.S. motor fuel consumption by the year 2010 through the production and

increased use of replacement fuels. Section 504 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 13254)

allows the Secretary to revise these goals downward.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fprovrule.pdf

[ecoli]

Perhaps subsidies for the purchase of hybrid/electric vehicles as well?

You mean for the companies who make them or for the people who buy them?

 

 

 

On another topic, what does everyone think about a suspension of the federal gas tax this summer? I tend to think its a bad idea, and the federal road systems will suffer without that income. Hillary's proposal to tax oil companies instead is shortsighted... they'll just raise prices to compensate. There's no way they'll just meekly absorb the cost.

[iNow]

Pandering.

 

We need real solutions, not band-aids on heart attacks.

[Pangloss]

Yeah the tax suspension thing just fails on so many levels. What are we paying, 18 cents a gallon on federal? Out of four bucks? Like I said in the Horse Race thread, she just can't seem to buy a break these days. Even when she panders it doesn't work, which says a LOT about someone who works in an "industry" in which pandering is the only tactic universally guaranteed to bring success.

 

 

Perhaps subsidies for the purchase of hybrid/electric vehicles as well?

 

The Honda Civic hybrid retails in Oz from $31,990 where a small efficient Holden Barina is $13,990. Even if you save $2,000 a year in juice, it will take 9 years before you actually save a cent.

 

Electric/Hybrid isn't enough, it has to be cheap as well. Those who are most effected by rising fuel costs are those least able to afford expensive cars. They'll buy the $14,000 car because that's what they can afford.

 

I don't think we should subsidize current hybrids. I think we should subsidize the new generation of electric-only-capable hybrids and other vehicles that use combinations of approaches that include pure electrical situational modes. Some of these cars have the ability to run for WEEKS on a tank of gas while commuting 60-80 miles per day (since it isn't using gas there at all), while still allowing for a fairly large, safe vehicle that can go out of town on weekends and fill-up on regular unleaded.

 

These cars preserve the American dream of vehicular independence, which in my opinion is something to celebrate.

[PhDP]

iNow; ecoli,

 

What I meant is that we can't just solve this problem with technology, I bet 100% of the improvements made possible by technology in the next 10 years would be offset by the increasing number of cars and the increasing demand in energy. Technology is mostly an excuse to do nothing and wait for a solution that won't come, we have to make some changes to our lifestyle.

 

I think the first thing we have to realise is that it's more a political problem than a technological one. Political parties are bashing nuclear energy, even though it might be the only real alternative source of energy for the next few decades.

 

... and when it comes to cars, well, we do need smaller cars, and we need less cars. Not only because of AGW, but because the air in many large cities is downright disgusting. We need to find a way to force people to use other means of transport when possible, I just can't believe that the average guy in New-York needs a car weighting several tons to traval a couple of kilometers. It's total nonsense, even so-called 'compact cars' are huge machines made to travel hundreds of kilometers.

 

In truth, it wouldn't be that hard, it could be done by implementing a tax directly related to the average fuel consumption of the car. But the tax would be implemented progressively, so people would now that in X years, they would have to find something smaller than a compact. It could also be done to protect ourself against inflation, food inflation is a real issue and the oil price increases don't help.

[CDarwin]

I think the first thing we have to realise is that it's more a political problem than a technological one. Political parties are bashing nuclear energy, even though it might be the only real alternative source of energy for the next few decades.[/Quote]

 

Great, so after the next few decades when the first nuclear plants started today come on line, we'll be set. Nuclear fuel is also a problem. It's becoming more expensive and harder to find. The days of cheap nuclear may be waning. You've got to provide for waste too, which no one seems willing to do.

 

I'm not categorically opposed to nuclear energy at all but I do wonder how practicable it still is.