Companies are buying large numbers of carbon offsets that don’t cut emissions(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Companies are buying large numbers of carbon offsets that don’t cut emissions
https://www.wsj.com/articles/renewables-carbon-credits-do-not-cut-emissions-united-nations-verra-gold-standard-11662644900
275 comments
https://archive.ph/InZpI
> Transactions like this undercut the basic concept behind carbon offsets—that they should fund green projects that wouldn’t be possible without the additional cash they bring.
Is this really the basic concept? I thought it was meant to deliver carbon cutting at the cheapest cost. Redesigning a Delta airlines jet to be electric or make the engine more fuel efficient is $$$$. Now, there is a village in India that uses a coal power plant. It's cheaper for Delta to build a solar power plant in India, shutdown the coal plant, and claim all the carbon output they've reduced in India then to try and build a new airplane.
Capital is therefore efficiently allocated to whatever carbon cutting project is the cheapest, therefore maximizing carbon reduction per dollar spent.
Is this really the basic concept? I thought it was meant to deliver carbon cutting at the cheapest cost. Redesigning a Delta airlines jet to be electric or make the engine more fuel efficient is $$$$. Now, there is a village in India that uses a coal power plant. It's cheaper for Delta to build a solar power plant in India, shutdown the coal plant, and claim all the carbon output they've reduced in India then to try and build a new airplane.
Capital is therefore efficiently allocated to whatever carbon cutting project is the cheapest, therefore maximizing carbon reduction per dollar spent.
Since delta is paying to convert a coal plant to a solar plant, carbon offsets create perverse incentives like allowing you to “sell” or hold hostage something you were going to do anyway, keep inefficient things around so you can sell offsets lager, or start off doing something inefficient or bad so someone can pay you to stop.
For example, as a fisherman it might be cheaper for me to buy some old, shitty, super-polluting boats, run them around for a bit generating huge amounts of emissions, and then go shopping for offsets. With the offsets I buy nicer boats that don’t pollute as much. But without the offsets I might have either not been fishing at all or gone straight for the nicer boats.
Basically, carbon offsets in theory allocate carbon savings where they are most effective financially, but in practice create structural inefficiencies (incentivized to start polluting to fix it). Also, they are prone to double counting. If I open a wind farm partially funded by carbon offsets, if I claim that the farm is removing as much CO2 as it actually saves, I’m double counting along with whoever paid for the offsets to be “carbon neutral” when there is indeed still a net amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere
For example, as a fisherman it might be cheaper for me to buy some old, shitty, super-polluting boats, run them around for a bit generating huge amounts of emissions, and then go shopping for offsets. With the offsets I buy nicer boats that don’t pollute as much. But without the offsets I might have either not been fishing at all or gone straight for the nicer boats.
Basically, carbon offsets in theory allocate carbon savings where they are most effective financially, but in practice create structural inefficiencies (incentivized to start polluting to fix it). Also, they are prone to double counting. If I open a wind farm partially funded by carbon offsets, if I claim that the farm is removing as much CO2 as it actually saves, I’m double counting along with whoever paid for the offsets to be “carbon neutral” when there is indeed still a net amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere
> perverse incentives like allowing you to “sell” or hold hostage something you were going to do anyway
This is true, but it's a weird way to frame it. Yes, absolutely: carbon-sensitive regulation changes the market pricing such that less polluting activities and means of production are "worth more". So if you have some, you win. If you were planning on having some in the future ("were going to do anyway"), you likewise get a windfall.
And thats... good? It's not perfect. But it produces the result we want.
IMHO the much bigger problem with offset regulation is that it's likely to be nearly impossible to actually measure[1] and we'll be dealing with cheating and fraud for decades. But the incentives seem fine to me.
[1] Vs. a carbon tax which is pure simplicity: $xxx per ton of carbon (for extra credit: a floating price based on a dynamic bid-based sequestration market) pulled out of nonrenewable sources, paid by the extractor at the time of initial sale, and let the market sort out how to allocate the overhead.
This is true, but it's a weird way to frame it. Yes, absolutely: carbon-sensitive regulation changes the market pricing such that less polluting activities and means of production are "worth more". So if you have some, you win. If you were planning on having some in the future ("were going to do anyway"), you likewise get a windfall.
And thats... good? It's not perfect. But it produces the result we want.
IMHO the much bigger problem with offset regulation is that it's likely to be nearly impossible to actually measure[1] and we'll be dealing with cheating and fraud for decades. But the incentives seem fine to me.
[1] Vs. a carbon tax which is pure simplicity: $xxx per ton of carbon (for extra credit: a floating price based on a dynamic bid-based sequestration market) pulled out of nonrenewable sources, paid by the extractor at the time of initial sale, and let the market sort out how to allocate the overhead.
Who gets to decide what the carbon footprint of every activity is? How is the surveillance of every activity performed? What is the performance metric to evaluate the success or failure of the system?
A tax on carbon is much simpler than a tax on carbon footprint.
Corporations buy carbon, to a good first approximation, as coal, gas, or crude.
That's what you tax. Plus a tarrif on countries which don't do likewise.
Corporations buy carbon, to a good first approximation, as coal, gas, or crude.
That's what you tax. Plus a tarrif on countries which don't do likewise.
Imagine being a politician and proposing taxes on energy and fuels which will directly and indirectly increase the price of literally everything. Imagine all the hate currently being directed at Russia being redirected towards you personally.
You can just make the tax revenue neutral, and give each person an equal dividend. That way the average person would actually get money back from this tax scheme. It’s what Canada does. The goal isn’t to raise money, it’s to incentivize consuming lower carbon goods.
That is why the tax revenue should be redistributed per head and why we need a carbon dividend.
That hasn't been a blocker in the past (see: all the other taxes that exist), why would it need to be going forward.
Popularity doesn't determine whether an answer is correct or not.
The third question has an obvious answer, so I'm not sure I get your point. The first two are just saying "regulation is hard", and I agree. But it's possible nonetheless, just like every other regulated industry.
Recognize that all your questions could have been asked about, say, sulphate emission regulation in the 1970's. (Or CFC's in the 90's). And that worked out OK.
Recognize that all your questions could have been asked about, say, sulphate emission regulation in the 1970's. (Or CFC's in the 90's). And that worked out OK.
> For example, as a fisherman it might be cheaper for me to buy some old, shitty, super-polluting boats,
At the level of an individual, yes.* However consider a fleet of cargo ships. They last, and depreciate, over about 20 years. Even if the owner buys newer, cleaner ones, they aren't throwing away the old ones, and the one bought today will stay in service until around 2042. It's not unreasonable to offset this ancient cap ex, especially if governments also ramp up regulation so the economics for the oldest/worst of continued use vs scrapping make them uneconomic.
In a utopian sense this is clearly worse than just replacing all the polluting equipment, but in the real world a "big bang" solution can't work, not the least because there isn't enough shipbuilding capacity to replace the entire fleet overnight.
The ethics of offset vs removal credits, and the whole offset credit market is a complex and sorry situation and this article just scratches the surface. OTOH one reason it's so marginal, despite the efforts of some people (including Verra and Gold Standard) to make it better, are largely because credits of any non-mandatory size are barely used (about $1B traded last year) so there's little incentive to clean it up. Hopefully that is in the process of changing; the market is growing and prices are rising faster than the market is growing indicating that demand is increasing.
* At the consumer level this is all awful. Remember when Obama did "Cash for clunkers" to get polluting cars off the road? You couldn't get the credit unless you bored a hole in the block and injected some epoxy. In Germany they had a similar program, but just took the old cars and shipped them to LDCs in Africa where they could continue to pollute, just someplace else. Or for aging luxury cars, some nefarious companies would send them across the border into Poland and then smuggle them back in and get the credit another time.
At the level of an individual, yes.* However consider a fleet of cargo ships. They last, and depreciate, over about 20 years. Even if the owner buys newer, cleaner ones, they aren't throwing away the old ones, and the one bought today will stay in service until around 2042. It's not unreasonable to offset this ancient cap ex, especially if governments also ramp up regulation so the economics for the oldest/worst of continued use vs scrapping make them uneconomic.
In a utopian sense this is clearly worse than just replacing all the polluting equipment, but in the real world a "big bang" solution can't work, not the least because there isn't enough shipbuilding capacity to replace the entire fleet overnight.
The ethics of offset vs removal credits, and the whole offset credit market is a complex and sorry situation and this article just scratches the surface. OTOH one reason it's so marginal, despite the efforts of some people (including Verra and Gold Standard) to make it better, are largely because credits of any non-mandatory size are barely used (about $1B traded last year) so there's little incentive to clean it up. Hopefully that is in the process of changing; the market is growing and prices are rising faster than the market is growing indicating that demand is increasing.
* At the consumer level this is all awful. Remember when Obama did "Cash for clunkers" to get polluting cars off the road? You couldn't get the credit unless you bored a hole in the block and injected some epoxy. In Germany they had a similar program, but just took the old cars and shipped them to LDCs in Africa where they could continue to pollute, just someplace else. Or for aging luxury cars, some nefarious companies would send them across the border into Poland and then smuggle them back in and get the credit another time.
Your point on depreciation is fair, but the 'cash for clunkers' program was nothing more than an economic subsidy.
There were no reasonable electric vehicles at the time which would have reduced carbon usage and the newer improved efficiency vehicles available would never offset after accounting for the entire vehicle manufacturing process. The old car getting lower mpg was still less polluting than producing an entire vehicle with mpg better by 30%.
Not only that, but it destroyed the secondary market by destroying all those vehicles, as you mentioned, requiring more production to make up for the short fall. Putting those second-life vehicles in other countries was a net benefit, reducing once again the new full production cost of vehicles there. In particular because less developed nations have historically been less accountable for pollution industrially by necessity.
Not only that, but it destroyed the secondary market by destroying all those vehicles, as you mentioned, requiring more production to make up for the short fall. Putting those second-life vehicles in other countries was a net benefit, reducing once again the new full production cost of vehicles there. In particular because less developed nations have historically been less accountable for pollution industrially by necessity.
Like the Great Hanoi Rat Massacre. [1] You get what you pay for!
1: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hanoi-rat-massacre-190...
1: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hanoi-rat-massacre-190...
Other examples include India had a bounty for snakes, so people started snake farms.
My favorite one though is about the British paying China for dinosaur fossils, but they paid per fragment, so (naturally!) entire fossils were smashed into many small pieces.
My favorite one though is about the British paying China for dinosaur fossils, but they paid per fragment, so (naturally!) entire fossils were smashed into many small pieces.
The Mexican government paid for the ears or scalps of Apache Native Americans. A gang of marauders called the Glanton Gang went around murdering anyone they encountered to take their ears/scalps.
If I look at a graph of oil discoveries vs oil production, negative incentives barely matter. Discoveries of oil are already lower than production! We're running down the available oil quickly and it is going to be come less economically competitive over time as we extract the cheap stuff. Natural gas is going to do something similar in the next few decades if it isn't already.
The government needs to be focused on making it easy to build alternative energy sources.
The government needs to be focused on making it easy to build alternative energy sources.
You need to maintain a separate set of accounting books alongside all assets to track net carbon offsets. E.g., in your boat example: The negative carbon offset balance needs to get attached to the boat, so that subsequent owners cannot claim the same benefit. Then there should be a threshold date at which assets get their offset balance zeroed.
Let's just have a CO2 tax already. Revenues given back to the people directly split evenly per person.
No, put all of it into core decarbonization of (first) electricity.
This is driven by policy goals, not market forces, and the gap between profitable behavior and ecological responsibility calls for money.
This is driven by policy goals, not market forces, and the gap between profitable behavior and ecological responsibility calls for money.
The policy goals are better served by being aligned with market forces.
A carbon tax which is fully refunded can be larger without causing economic damage, because it nets to zero for the average customer.
Meanwhile you eliminate the overhead and corruption opportunity on the decarbonization side. If you have a meaningful carbon tax, the incentive to decarbonize exists in proportion to the size of the tax, but people can do it however is most efficient rather than according to the way specified by the companies with the best lobbyists.
A carbon tax which is fully refunded can be larger without causing economic damage, because it nets to zero for the average customer.
Meanwhile you eliminate the overhead and corruption opportunity on the decarbonization side. If you have a meaningful carbon tax, the incentive to decarbonize exists in proportion to the size of the tax, but people can do it however is most efficient rather than according to the way specified by the companies with the best lobbyists.
I am in favour of a carbon tax, but why do you think a carbon tax is less vulnerable to corruption?
I might be if you have lots of exceptions and exemptions to the tax, but you should set it up as a tax of $$/ton of CO2 emitted (with credits for sequestration). You can change the tax rate but you don't have all of these piece meal subsidies and tax credits (wind, solar, electric cars, plug in hybrids, etc.) that can extract donations from various industries to get their specific business subsidized. Pay a small campaign donation for a huge payoff, ie. corruption.
Why wouldn't a high carbon tax drive decarbonization of electricity sufficiently well?
People seem to think that the carbon dividend makes saving CO2 pointless for the average consumer but they forgot that the consumer isn't actually in charge of deciding how much CO2 pollution a production process should result in. The business sees a cost on its balance sheet and it has an incentive to minimize its costs, which also is an incentive to minimize pollution even if the average consumer doesn't give a rat's ass.
Which is also the reason why a $100/ton carbon tax won't raise the price of a laptop that currently causes 0.3 t to be emitted by $30: Some of the components will (somewhere along the value chain!) be replaced with less carbon intensive alternatives that were just slightly too expensive to be worth bothering with. That's how carbon taxes achieve most of their benefit - not by shifting consumption or pricing consumers out!
The above numbers are realistic examples for the magnitude of carbon taxes typically discussed and the manufacturing carbon footprint of a laptop, btw.
The above numbers are realistic examples for the magnitude of carbon taxes typically discussed and the manufacturing carbon footprint of a laptop, btw.
[deleted]
That sounds good but it probably wouldn’t work in the developing and undeveloped world. Also, it doesn’t stop the problem of new things being made because they have a floor price set by carbon offsets. A new polluting asset becomes more valuable when it has a fixed rebate for decommissioning it. You can scrap my old shitty polluting boat but I can probably just buy a new shitty polluting boat
When the Catholic Church did this in the Middle Ages, they were called 'indulgences' and they ended up being a license to sin, which it turns out is a very bad idea.
I gotta say, the catholic church indulgence system would have been a lot more interesting if it were structured as offsets instead of just payments. It's a great way to explain how ludicrous the current system is though. You can pay me to promise not to cheat on my spouse for the next 3 years in exchange for you being able to cheat on yours.
Catholic indulgences as they were actually structured would be more akin to just a carbon tax.
Catholic indulgences as they were actually structured would be more akin to just a carbon tax.
Honestly the indulgence system is easy to game. Just buy an indulgence and kill the issuers of indulgences.
Somehow none of the responses seem to say this explicitly: you didn't actually contradict the definition you quoted! The idea is that that solar power plant being built is a green project that wouldn't be possible without the additional cash from Delta... if that power plant was already able to happen without this money (which happened to be provided by Delta) then Delta didn't really buy anything and so shouldn't get any credit. And that's the issue people keep noting about these carbon credit projects: that the money spent on these credits often somehow isn't cutting emissions (as it is clearly intended to in your example, as that's the basic concept behind the market).
the skeptic in me thinks if an engine is more fuel efficient they will not fly it with reduced carbon emissions, they will fly more and get same carbon emissions.
Funny, I thought the basic concept was that they allow westerners to tick a box and mitigate the guilt they feel from living ludicrously unsustainable lifestyles.
In theory, it's great. In practice perverse incentives and little to no regulation make it worthless. A John Oliver explainer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
Side tangent. John Oliver is amazing at using comedy to basically blow the whistle on a lot of shitty things happening in this country.. from the way truckers are treated and basically exploited, to drinking water crises, and everything in between. Jon Stewart did a lot of this too, and was great. I heard once people who get news from shows like the Daily show, Late shows or John Oliver type shows actually are more 'informed' about current events than those who watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or even just local nightly news on NBC or CBS.
That's true, and popularizing knowledge is important.
What's also true is you get only a specific worldview and consequent narrative from these kinds of shows. They have convergent ideologies and parrot a single, totalizing, pro-capital, -moderation, -individualist method for solving the problems stated as such. It's great if you've drunk the Kool-aid but it does paper over a lot of prescient issues (climate change, culture war, etc.) on the assumption that they will be solved by emphasizing politicking and de-emphasizing economicking.
What's also true is you get only a specific worldview and consequent narrative from these kinds of shows. They have convergent ideologies and parrot a single, totalizing, pro-capital, -moderation, -individualist method for solving the problems stated as such. It's great if you've drunk the Kool-aid but it does paper over a lot of prescient issues (climate change, culture war, etc.) on the assumption that they will be solved by emphasizing politicking and de-emphasizing economicking.
No you are not more informed. Local news gives you a local len that presents different issues. National coverage on any news network will provide you more depth and you will be more informed (have more details)
At one point most young people got there news from these sources. They do provide a point of view on an issue. By making someone else look stupid you as the viewer feel smarter and more informed even though you aren't.
At one point most young people got there news from these sources. They do provide a point of view on an issue. By making someone else look stupid you as the viewer feel smarter and more informed even though you aren't.
I don't think you can singularify 'lense'?
The spoof offsets he sells at the end of that segment have already sold out:
https://www.oliversoffsets.org/
https://www.oliversoffsets.org/
This has been known in the industry for years. Everyone is pushing companies to be carbon neutral, but that doesn't really mean money is going where it should...it just looks good on paper.
Unless companies have moral people in their upper management and are doing their due diligence when selecting offsets then the money is just going to other corporate profits and not making any impact at all. I know this for a fact since my company is carbon neutral and I also oversee the review process for not just carbon offsets but also RECs. You can thank the government for little oversight in the carbon offset process that they developed.
Unless companies have moral people in their upper management and are doing their due diligence when selecting offsets then the money is just going to other corporate profits and not making any impact at all. I know this for a fact since my company is carbon neutral and I also oversee the review process for not just carbon offsets but also RECs. You can thank the government for little oversight in the carbon offset process that they developed.
> are doing their due diligence
Well they actually are doing due diligence, the problem is they have a different objective: find the most carbon credits to buy for the least money. It's not like they actually care about being neutral, if they did they'd cut emissions instead of pushing it onto others. It's all PR and complying with government regulations.
Unfortunately the legit sources aren't gonna be a good choice for that goal.
Well they actually are doing due diligence, the problem is they have a different objective: find the most carbon credits to buy for the least money. It's not like they actually care about being neutral, if they did they'd cut emissions instead of pushing it onto others. It's all PR and complying with government regulations.
Unfortunately the legit sources aren't gonna be a good choice for that goal.
Agreed. We just need to tax carbon or the externality of emissions more. It doesn't make sense for companies to figure out climate/energy science out on their own anyways. Its completely silly to expect that every mid-size company figure this out on their own and voluntary pay more than their competitors and lose any pricing edge.
The money equivalency is the problem, not sure taxing it will work either, only because will set the tax too low, or it will get raised too high and be used to do something unrelated. It doesn't matter if they pay enough to sequester equivalent carbon, it matters if it actually gets done. What if we tax, but in the form of stable or usable carbon? If you emit X tons of co2 then you have to bring Y tons of coal, diesel, crude, diamonds, graphite, preserved wood or whatever, to government sequestration sites, or pay someone else to do so. Laws to prevent the government from using the stuff, and you'd drive up the price of fossil fuels simultaneously to account for their externality as well.
> or it will get raised too high and be used to do something unrelated
That matters very little. Carbon taxation is a Pigovian tax, and just making emitting CO2 more expensive creates strong incentives to stop emitting CO2. It also makes "green" alternatives comparatively cheaper.
In fact, many proponents of carbon taxation support equal redistribution of the tax money to everyone (e.g. as tax credits). Taxpayers polluting less than average would see their tax burden decrease, while those polluting more than average would be paying more and thus be incentivized to change their behavior.
(Of course, it's not that easy in the real world, some behavior can be extremely hard to change without help/subventions/large investments. But these helps don't have to be tied to carbon taxation.)
That matters very little. Carbon taxation is a Pigovian tax, and just making emitting CO2 more expensive creates strong incentives to stop emitting CO2. It also makes "green" alternatives comparatively cheaper.
In fact, many proponents of carbon taxation support equal redistribution of the tax money to everyone (e.g. as tax credits). Taxpayers polluting less than average would see their tax burden decrease, while those polluting more than average would be paying more and thus be incentivized to change their behavior.
(Of course, it's not that easy in the real world, some behavior can be extremely hard to change without help/subventions/large investments. But these helps don't have to be tied to carbon taxation.)
> government sequestration sites
Well that would drive up demand for fossil fuels and profits for extraction companies, leading to more extraction. Is this a real idea (proposed policy in a country) or just something you wrote down?
Well that would drive up demand for fossil fuels and profits for extraction companies, leading to more extraction. Is this a real idea (proposed policy in a country) or just something you wrote down?
Great point. I have a comment below that goes into some of the difficulty with this distinction.
To be fair, many small/mid-sized companies that act as suppliers to larger companies would basically have the larger company doing the carbon accounting for them.
For large companies, I think it would look more like an accounting capability than a climate/energy science one. The carbon credit market might become regulated with some accreditation system after these wild west years.
To be fair, many small/mid-sized companies that act as suppliers to larger companies would basically have the larger company doing the carbon accounting for them.
For large companies, I think it would look more like an accounting capability than a climate/energy science one. The carbon credit market might become regulated with some accreditation system after these wild west years.
[deleted]
This can only be said bluntly: carbon trade schemes are and always have been about creating trillion-dollar money laundering opportunities. The problem is unspecified. Results are unmeasurable. The usual suspects are conspicuously present.
In theory a carbon trade scheme is more efficient, in practice governments don't shrink the quantity of emissions certificates fast enough, they give away free certificates to heavy polluters like coal power instead of running an auction.
...and it's all sanctioned by the government because they make boatloads of money in the process. All in the name of the greater good.
>You can thank the government for little oversight in the carbon offset process that they developed.
Carbon offsetting is a government program? I thought this was pretty much all the work of private companies, with buyers doing so voluntarily and providers self-regulating (hence the problems). Is that not the case?
Carbon offsetting is a government program? I thought this was pretty much all the work of private companies, with buyers doing so voluntarily and providers self-regulating (hence the problems). Is that not the case?
Yes but companies who overly rely on carbon offsets are shooting themselves in the foot. With emission targets gradually lowering and regulations becoming more and more ambitious, offsets will become more expensive.
Not investing into meaningfully reducing emissions now is a glaring lack of forward planning and due diligence. I fully expect some companies to tank in the next twenty years because of their current failure to adapt.
Not investing into meaningfully reducing emissions now is a glaring lack of forward planning and due diligence. I fully expect some companies to tank in the next twenty years because of their current failure to adapt.
> With emission targets gradually lowering and regulations becoming more and more ambitious, offsets will become more expensive.
Oh legitimate carbon offsets will be in short supply, which you'd expect to raise prices. No doubt about that.
But fraudulent carbon offsets? Those can be produced in whatever quantities buyers are willing to pay for.
Oh legitimate carbon offsets will be in short supply, which you'd expect to raise prices. No doubt about that.
But fraudulent carbon offsets? Those can be produced in whatever quantities buyers are willing to pay for.
Good luck with that: https://www.theclimatewarehouse.org/
The right way to reduce CO2 emissions is to simply tax the carbon content of fuels as they are sold from the refinery. Increase the tax until the usage goes down.
Simple, effective, efficient, and boring. And hard to virtue signal one's way out of.
Simple, effective, efficient, and boring. And hard to virtue signal one's way out of.
Unfortunately this doesn’t really work in a democracy. It’s just going to end up being too unpopular. The next president is just going to run on “I will cancel the carbon credits!” And then win the election in a landslide and cancel them.
One option is fee-and-dividend, which pays all the revenue back out to the population, equal amount per capita.
You still have an incentive to reduce emissions, because your dividend is the same regardless and you can reduce your fees. And since most people's net emissions are less than average, most people come out ahead.
You still have an incentive to reduce emissions, because your dividend is the same regardless and you can reduce your fees. And since most people's net emissions are less than average, most people come out ahead.
At the end of the day, any sort of tax is going to generate a dead weight loss. The amount of money that gets distributed to you with a carbon dividend inevitably is going to be less than your additional tax burden or the consumer surplus from the goods and services you otherwise would have bought without the tax. Of course, you make very good arguments about why the dead weight loss is absolutely dwarfed by the negative externalities of fossil fuel emissions. Even if you don't consider climate change, air pollution is a contributor of over 100,000 deaths in America alone. However, this point is moot if people aren't willing to act on those externalities.
A given person will not inevitably get back less than their tax burden, people on average will get back less, but I'm pretty sure the median person will get back more. People who eg. fly a lot will get back less, those who live relatively modest lives will get back a good bit more. The wealthy will disproportionately bear the brunt of a carbon tax, because they tend to live much more energy-intensive lives than the median person.
Emissions scales very sublinearly with wealth. Someone who is 1000x richer than average isn't going to live in 1000 houses, eat 1000x more beef, or drive 1000 cars simultaneously. This means that they're in a much better position to simply eat the cost of a carbon tax while the poor and middle class will actually have to make the sacrifices to reduce emissions. Even if they're technically be ahead monetarily, they'd feel worse off because they have to organize carpools, turn down the thermostat in the winter, etc.
It's true that someone rich won't be especially bothered by fee-and-dividend, even though they're paying out more than they're getting back. It won't be an effective tool for reducing the emissions of rich people.
It's also true that a person with lower-than-average emissions will pay out less than they get back. They'll have a strong incentive to reduce emissions, but even if they don't reduce emissions they'll be better off than before. These people will be the majority.
The people who might feel worse off are those who emit a bit more than average without being rich. They'll need to modify their behaviors if they want to come out ahead. Of course that's part of the whole point.
A lot of people might actually be ok with changing their behaviors, if they know everybody's doing it so it will actually make a difference. Right now we have this public goods situation where the outcome is going to be the same regardless of what you personally do. Dealing with public goods situations is the main reason for taxes in general; it's hard to fund roads with voluntary donations, so most people are ok with paying taxes for roads.
The other benefit of fee-and-dividend is that it makes low-carbon energy sources more competitive. It's not just about getting people to carpool or whatever, it's about getting fossil fuels off the grid and the roads, because they just can't compete.
Of course if that works, the end result might be higher prices that don't get reflected in the dividend. But we don't end up in a apocalyptic nightmare, so there's that.
It's also true that a person with lower-than-average emissions will pay out less than they get back. They'll have a strong incentive to reduce emissions, but even if they don't reduce emissions they'll be better off than before. These people will be the majority.
The people who might feel worse off are those who emit a bit more than average without being rich. They'll need to modify their behaviors if they want to come out ahead. Of course that's part of the whole point.
A lot of people might actually be ok with changing their behaviors, if they know everybody's doing it so it will actually make a difference. Right now we have this public goods situation where the outcome is going to be the same regardless of what you personally do. Dealing with public goods situations is the main reason for taxes in general; it's hard to fund roads with voluntary donations, so most people are ok with paying taxes for roads.
The other benefit of fee-and-dividend is that it makes low-carbon energy sources more competitive. It's not just about getting people to carpool or whatever, it's about getting fossil fuels off the grid and the roads, because they just can't compete.
Of course if that works, the end result might be higher prices that don't get reflected in the dividend. But we don't end up in a apocalyptic nightmare, so there's that.
Rich people easily produce 100 tons of CO2 emissions or more per person. If they eat the cost of a carbon tax with a carbon dividend that is effectively a donation to less wealthy people.
Wealthy people own businesses and those businesses have a strong incentive to reduce emissions, when they do, they end up reducing the tax burden on their consumers.
Wealthy people own businesses and those businesses have a strong incentive to reduce emissions, when they do, they end up reducing the tax burden on their consumers.
You’re not wrong about the sublinearity, though someone maintaining a $20M mansion on 20 acres is going to use many times the energy maintaining it, especially when you consider the materials used for maintenance.
The average person wouldn’t have to organize carpools, though it’d certainly be incentivized - at least at the beginning, I’m assuming most wouldn’t, so not doing that, you’d still be a net recipient of tax money. But part of the whole point is that we can’t continue living exactly the same way, if we don’t want to destroy ourselves, and especially our children.
The average person wouldn’t have to organize carpools, though it’d certainly be incentivized - at least at the beginning, I’m assuming most wouldn’t, so not doing that, you’d still be a net recipient of tax money. But part of the whole point is that we can’t continue living exactly the same way, if we don’t want to destroy ourselves, and especially our children.
Well, are you trying to disincentivize CO2 emissions or just tax the rich more?
> At the end of the day, any sort of tax is going to generate a dead weight loss.
You say that like it's not the goal.
Yes. People will do fewer polluting things. That's the point.
The harms from the externalities vastly dwarf any total economic reduction.
You say that like it's not the goal.
Yes. People will do fewer polluting things. That's the point.
The harms from the externalities vastly dwarf any total economic reduction.
>At the end of the day, any sort of tax is going to generate a dead weight loss
The entire point of a pigovian tax is to create a deadweight loss proportional to the harm an externality causes.
>The amount of money that gets distributed to you with a carbon dividend inevitably is going to be less than your additional tax burden or the consumer surplus from the goods and services you otherwise would have bought without the tax
As I already said, the difference between what you pay in and get out is an incentive to make you cease the activity that produces the harmful externality.
>Of course, you make very good arguments about why the dead weight loss is absolutely dwarfed by the negative externalities of fossil fuel emissions.
That is how a pigovian tax is supposed to work.
>Even if you don't consider climate change, air pollution is a contributor of over 100,000 deaths in America alone. However, this point is moot if people aren't willing to act on those externalities.
This is irrelevant, lots of countries have adopted carbon taxes. The benefits are obvious, less bureaucracy for businesses, more money to poor people, less shaming for a lack of personal action, mitigating climate change, less corruption and wasteful spending.
The alternative to carbon taxes isn't no carbon taxes, the alternative is more micromanagement by the government which is more likely to result in even bigger deadweight losses which are unlikely to be proportional to the amount of negative externalities that are being avoided.
The entire point of a pigovian tax is to create a deadweight loss proportional to the harm an externality causes.
>The amount of money that gets distributed to you with a carbon dividend inevitably is going to be less than your additional tax burden or the consumer surplus from the goods and services you otherwise would have bought without the tax
As I already said, the difference between what you pay in and get out is an incentive to make you cease the activity that produces the harmful externality.
>Of course, you make very good arguments about why the dead weight loss is absolutely dwarfed by the negative externalities of fossil fuel emissions.
That is how a pigovian tax is supposed to work.
>Even if you don't consider climate change, air pollution is a contributor of over 100,000 deaths in America alone. However, this point is moot if people aren't willing to act on those externalities.
This is irrelevant, lots of countries have adopted carbon taxes. The benefits are obvious, less bureaucracy for businesses, more money to poor people, less shaming for a lack of personal action, mitigating climate change, less corruption and wasteful spending.
The alternative to carbon taxes isn't no carbon taxes, the alternative is more micromanagement by the government which is more likely to result in even bigger deadweight losses which are unlikely to be proportional to the amount of negative externalities that are being avoided.
I've been telling people how great this idea is for years, because it's simple for organizations to plan around as it gradually ratchets up, easy to administer, and sort of progressive in the sense that the poor benefit more (relatively) than the rich.
But this year the penny finally dropped for me how demoralizingly futile it is to make rational carbon policy in the US by talking about its merits. The success of the Inflation Reduction Act ($370bn for climate) was entirely due to a cunning political hack: not taxing individuals (only corporations) and reducing the deficit at the same time (by staffing the IRS to enforce existing tax collection laws), so that it could be acceptable to the holdout conservative Democrats.
But this year the penny finally dropped for me how demoralizingly futile it is to make rational carbon policy in the US by talking about its merits. The success of the Inflation Reduction Act ($370bn for climate) was entirely due to a cunning political hack: not taxing individuals (only corporations) and reducing the deficit at the same time (by staffing the IRS to enforce existing tax collection laws), so that it could be acceptable to the holdout conservative Democrats.
[deleted]
I think I've heard this option called a Pigovian tax before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax.
A Pigovian tax, set correctly, will actually remove the deadweight loss caused by a negative externality. However, it is very difficult in practice to measure the negative externalities of something like sea level rise, especially when the effect could be centuries in the future.
A perfect pigovian tax is rarely necessary. Just 10% of the ideal rate is already sufficient in a lot of cases simply because of the fact that a lot of harmful activites are free and not tracked.
Let's say there is a wood stove that increases cooking efficiency by 2x, this means a lot less trees have to be cut down for cooking. However to a person for whom trees are free, they aren't going to buy a better stove just to save on emissions, they will only start once they run out of trees which is when it is already too late. By charging a fee per tree, even if it is a token amount, people will start calculating and weighing whether cutting down more trees or less trees and buying the stove is the better option. Once they have made the initial investment they may even tell their neighbours about it. A single person changing their mind, can change the minds of everyone.
Let's say there is a wood stove that increases cooking efficiency by 2x, this means a lot less trees have to be cut down for cooking. However to a person for whom trees are free, they aren't going to buy a better stove just to save on emissions, they will only start once they run out of trees which is when it is already too late. By charging a fee per tree, even if it is a token amount, people will start calculating and weighing whether cutting down more trees or less trees and buying the stove is the better option. Once they have made the initial investment they may even tell their neighbours about it. A single person changing their mind, can change the minds of everyone.
Net over a year that's all well and good but the extra wait for that dividend payment to come in will be rough for a lot of people.
Dividends don't have to go out annually. Estimated taxes would come in quarterly, and it wouldn't be hard for the government to pay out as frequently as social security checks. Each period, adjust payments to make up for discrepancies in the last period.
This system rewards people for others emitting carbon, no? Doesnt that create an incentive for people to want more emissions?
as a company I want other companies to have non competitive prices, so yes.
But why would anyone voluntarily follow that? It's not like money is generated out of nothing.
But why would anyone voluntarily follow that? It's not like money is generated out of nothing.
What about introducing a variable environmental toll at the border? It could be based on the environmental rules of the exporting country and the expected emissions of the production and transport of the good.
Ideally, this would have the following effects:
* Make local manufacturing more competitive - introducing only local regulations gives companies a big incentive to produce in less stringently regulated areas. Correcting this could bring back manufacturing and be politically popular.
* Give companies an incentive to develop sustainable processes.
* Give companies an incentive to lobby other governments to introduce more stringent rules.
* Align cost of goods with actual externalities, motivating people to buy more sustainable products.
* The toll revenue could be used to improve carbon saving initiatives, such as public transport and sequestration.
Ideally, this would have the following effects:
* Make local manufacturing more competitive - introducing only local regulations gives companies a big incentive to produce in less stringently regulated areas. Correcting this could bring back manufacturing and be politically popular.
* Give companies an incentive to develop sustainable processes.
* Give companies an incentive to lobby other governments to introduce more stringent rules.
* Align cost of goods with actual externalities, motivating people to buy more sustainable products.
* The toll revenue could be used to improve carbon saving initiatives, such as public transport and sequestration.
Putting America on economic parity with manufacturing polluters like China and Mexico is reasonable. The environmental tariffs would be helpful to stop companies from green-washing by manufacturing the iGadgets in polluting countries.
We already tax everything else, including fuel.
And those taxes are extremely unpopular! And for a carbon tax to work the tax would need to be punitive.
It might feel punitive, but the entire point of pigouvian taxes is that people were taking advantage of not having to pay for externalities. Not having the tax is punitive to the people who are consuming less than the average energy.
Unfortunately the people who consume the least energy often have the least political power.
All taxes are unpopular, unless they mostly or completely fall on other people.
That hasn't stopped taxes in a democracy.
That hasn't stopped taxes in a democracy.
If we had more unpopular taxes we could have less taxes (quantity and revenue) overall.
That's why you take the revenue from the tax and distribute it across the population. The slight rise in prices is less noticeable than the check/deposit you get every month/year.
And the next president will lose the election in a landslide for ending the free money.
And the next president will lose the election in a landslide for ending the free money.
Taxing at the refinery (or even well head) seems reasonable, but it might be difficult to set up the tariffs properly.
Instead, they could tax gasoline at $1/gallon (and do similar things for other greenhouse gas sources, such as coal, meat and concrete), and use the resulting funds for carbon capture.
If you want a progressive tax, tax new cars at $2 * 200,000 miles / EPA combined miles per gallon. This will instantly make all new cars carbon neutral or negative at the tailpipe. Similarly, you could also tax embodied carbon on all new goods.
The $1/gallon of gas computation works like this:
Burning a gallon of gas produces 20lbs of CO2. (The O2 in the CO2 comes from the atmosphere, explaining why the CO2 weighs more than the gasoline.)
A ton is 2000 lbs, so 100 gallons of gas emits a ton of CO2.
Atmospheric carbon capture looks like it will cost roughly $100 / ton at scale, or $1/gallon of gasoline.
Instead, they could tax gasoline at $1/gallon (and do similar things for other greenhouse gas sources, such as coal, meat and concrete), and use the resulting funds for carbon capture.
If you want a progressive tax, tax new cars at $2 * 200,000 miles / EPA combined miles per gallon. This will instantly make all new cars carbon neutral or negative at the tailpipe. Similarly, you could also tax embodied carbon on all new goods.
The $1/gallon of gas computation works like this:
Burning a gallon of gas produces 20lbs of CO2. (The O2 in the CO2 comes from the atmosphere, explaining why the CO2 weighs more than the gasoline.)
A ton is 2000 lbs, so 100 gallons of gas emits a ton of CO2.
Atmospheric carbon capture looks like it will cost roughly $100 / ton at scale, or $1/gallon of gasoline.
It's so much easier to just tax it at the production site, because such production is pretty concentrated in a handful of sites.
Taxing the C also properly accounts for different fuels having different energy per C atom.
Taxing the C also properly accounts for different fuels having different energy per C atom.
> Instead, they could tax gasoline at $1/gallon (and do similar things for other greenhouse gas sources, such as coal, meat and concrete), and use the resulting funds for carbon capture.
But you know there's only one political party in america willing to spend money to help preserve the environment. And there's another party in america that actively works against any environmental policy for purely culture-war reasons. And if party A raises the price of gasoline, then party A gets immediately voted out and party B will find a way to push even harder in the opposite direction.
We need a way to offset carbon that is politics-neutral. And I'm afraid gasoline prices are front-and-center as a political arena these days.
But you know there's only one political party in america willing to spend money to help preserve the environment. And there's another party in america that actively works against any environmental policy for purely culture-war reasons. And if party A raises the price of gasoline, then party A gets immediately voted out and party B will find a way to push even harder in the opposite direction.
We need a way to offset carbon that is politics-neutral. And I'm afraid gasoline prices are front-and-center as a political arena these days.
How do you do this, without hurting people with 'clunkers' who need said 'clunker' to get to work or the market (because they live in a food desert), and can't really afford to upgrade to greener living because cost of living takes their whole paycheck, and they'd be homeless if they can't afford gas or their car breaks down unless they just started living out of their car?
I'm hesitant to think taxing gas at the pump makes any sense, I think maybe taxing diesel though could be a better thing because diesel is used more commercially by big rigs, which is a tax on commercial industries rather than consumers. Jet Fuel and such should have a very high tax, because that's something most people don't use, and isn't really a 'necessity'. Fuel at ports should also be taxed, and I think ports/airports should be under some global climate action 'congress' or something that ensures equal taxation and carbon offsets globally are being applied.
Though, if we were to use all the tax revenue or at least maybe 50% for UBI to say anyone with < 100k annual salary, I think it wouldn't matter if we taxed everything more evenly including gas at the pump, in fact that'd probably encourage more support for taxing carbon offsets since much of it goes to taxpayers as cash in their pocket.
I'm hesitant to think taxing gas at the pump makes any sense, I think maybe taxing diesel though could be a better thing because diesel is used more commercially by big rigs, which is a tax on commercial industries rather than consumers. Jet Fuel and such should have a very high tax, because that's something most people don't use, and isn't really a 'necessity'. Fuel at ports should also be taxed, and I think ports/airports should be under some global climate action 'congress' or something that ensures equal taxation and carbon offsets globally are being applied.
Though, if we were to use all the tax revenue or at least maybe 50% for UBI to say anyone with < 100k annual salary, I think it wouldn't matter if we taxed everything more evenly including gas at the pump, in fact that'd probably encourage more support for taxing carbon offsets since much of it goes to taxpayers as cash in their pocket.
In canada our carbon tax gets charged on fuel purchases and returned to taxpayers based on income level. If your income is below the threshold, you get the same rebate regardless of if you drive a 30-year-old pickup truck or a bicycle.
seems fair without rewarding the people who drive clunkers.
seems fair without rewarding the people who drive clunkers.
Return all of the CO2 tax to the people. Everyone gets a check for the same amount each quarter.
The sentence starting with "if you want a progressive tax" addresses this.
We already tax gas at the pump.
A Hyundai i10 is very cheap and it consumes very little gasoline.
I agree so hard. But it's like Georgism. There's a clear path forward in economic theory, but the truth is that there is a divergence between Stated and Revealed Preferences. The former say "We are worried about Anthropogenic Climate Change". The latter say "We will fire you if you act like we care about Anthropogenic Climate Change to the extent that it causes discomfort".
This is, in many ways, the ideal for most people. One can say "Climate Change is really important" while blaming "The Corporations" for what they're doing and simultaneously blaming the President for "raising the price of gas".
That way you can appear virtuous while not sacrificing anything.
This is, in many ways, the ideal for most people. One can say "Climate Change is really important" while blaming "The Corporations" for what they're doing and simultaneously blaming the President for "raising the price of gas".
That way you can appear virtuous while not sacrificing anything.
The vast bulk of climate policy appears to be virtue signalling. Like EV cars having "zero emissions", never mind the coal power plants needed to charge the batteries.
California's electricity mix made EVs pretty good (especially with timed charging) but I believe you are right in general. A classic example is environmentalists who want sprawl over dense cities.
Another example is blocking permits for natural gas pipelines. This has resulted in increased coal plant usage.
Coal emits twice the CO2 per energy than natural gas does.
Coal emits twice the CO2 per energy than natural gas does.
It also means throttling renewables because coal plants are usually less responsive and flexible.
Even coal power plants release less carbon per mile driven than ICE cars.
Even for brown Coal? And accounting for embedded emissions etc.?
Less, but not much less.
I agree completely. It is much easier to directly capture the externalities at the most centralized and traceable point (production/refining, and importing) than to have a decentralized system of varying standards and shadiness. If you tax carbon at the source there is no nuance and it’s much harder to cheat.
The problem does become partly a tragedy of the commons though. If eg China doesn’t tax carbon at all internally, then we’d need to figure out how to appropriately tax the emissions of imported finished goods so as not to incentivize them to release CO2 as a competitive advantage. Even if we do that, they may still trade with another country that doesn’t tax imported goods either. One benefit for carbon offsets is they can in theory be used to incentivize cross-border emissions reductions without requiring the poorer countries to sacrifice anything.
The problem does become partly a tragedy of the commons though. If eg China doesn’t tax carbon at all internally, then we’d need to figure out how to appropriately tax the emissions of imported finished goods so as not to incentivize them to release CO2 as a competitive advantage. Even if we do that, they may still trade with another country that doesn’t tax imported goods either. One benefit for carbon offsets is they can in theory be used to incentivize cross-border emissions reductions without requiring the poorer countries to sacrifice anything.
Right, the biggest problem with a carbon tax is that it would lead to industries that are heavily reliant on energy to move to defecting countries. Do we really want North korea to become the epicenter of crypto mining?
We're already implementing ineffective green policies that put the US at a competitive disadvantage. At least C taxing would be effective.
The US has several carbon fees/taxes.
https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data
https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data
Yes, and put millions of people out of work so they can starve and live in tents
I'm not saying your wrong, only that raising the price of fuel raises the price of everything else. Fuel prices go up, shipping prices go up, shipping prices go up, product prices go up, product prices go up, less people can afford to life. Company expenses go up, company looks for ways to cut expenses, often by lowering employment, etc...
VS coming up with cleaner and cheaper ways to fuel things, then everything goes in the other direction. Cheaper fuel = cheaper shipping = cheaper products = more poor people can eat. Companies make more money they can hire more people, etc...
I know that's easier said than done, just pointing out raising the price of fuel is not a simple solution beacuse it has extreme consequences.
I'm not saying your wrong, only that raising the price of fuel raises the price of everything else. Fuel prices go up, shipping prices go up, shipping prices go up, product prices go up, product prices go up, less people can afford to life. Company expenses go up, company looks for ways to cut expenses, often by lowering employment, etc...
VS coming up with cleaner and cheaper ways to fuel things, then everything goes in the other direction. Cheaper fuel = cheaper shipping = cheaper products = more poor people can eat. Companies make more money they can hire more people, etc...
I know that's easier said than done, just pointing out raising the price of fuel is not a simple solution beacuse it has extreme consequences.
I'm always wary of just-so stories. It's easy to pull them in any direction one wants. Cheaper fuel -> lower prices -> greater consumption -> more reliance on extraction of limited resources -> less ability to move off those resources/find alternatives without destroying the global economy -> disaster when we hit "peak whatever." The pandemic has shown how fragile the global economy has become due to the massive network of linkages that have grown between what could be relatively self-sufficient countries. A ship crashing in single canal sent commodity prices worldwide through the roof for months!
There was a comic I read a while back during the 2008 financial crisis, describing the banking sector as a group of wizards building a massive tower in a town. Eventually, it grows too large, wobbling and nearing collapse. The wizards beg the townspeople for help. The townspeople say this is the natural consequence of their actions, but the wizards counter that should their tower fall, it is large enough to do significant damage to the town as well. Thus galvanized, the town gathers together and shores up the foundations of the tower, securing it. At which point the wizards promptly go back to making it even taller and grander, because no one ever learns a lesson.
People are extremely averse to direct negative consequences of actions, but are much more nonchalant about indirect negative consequences, especially of inaction (see; the trolley problem). There is always hope of a miracle cure. That is the thrust of your argument; strong action now may fix the issue, but cause widespread suffering in the short term. Whereas the status quo is a slowly boiling pot, and perhaps someone will find a way to turn off the heat while we languish here, but more likely someone won't and waiting will lead to an even worse economic outcome when global supply chains are disrupted even more forcefully than by a simple tax hike.
There was a comic I read a while back during the 2008 financial crisis, describing the banking sector as a group of wizards building a massive tower in a town. Eventually, it grows too large, wobbling and nearing collapse. The wizards beg the townspeople for help. The townspeople say this is the natural consequence of their actions, but the wizards counter that should their tower fall, it is large enough to do significant damage to the town as well. Thus galvanized, the town gathers together and shores up the foundations of the tower, securing it. At which point the wizards promptly go back to making it even taller and grander, because no one ever learns a lesson.
People are extremely averse to direct negative consequences of actions, but are much more nonchalant about indirect negative consequences, especially of inaction (see; the trolley problem). There is always hope of a miracle cure. That is the thrust of your argument; strong action now may fix the issue, but cause widespread suffering in the short term. Whereas the status quo is a slowly boiling pot, and perhaps someone will find a way to turn off the heat while we languish here, but more likely someone won't and waiting will lead to an even worse economic outcome when global supply chains are disrupted even more forcefully than by a simple tax hike.
We tax everything else without wrecking the economy.
I didn't say taxes would wreck
the economy. I said it would affect the poor. The cost will be passed on to the consumer. I can afford that cost but lots
of poor can't
You can easily find tons of articles about how inflation hurts the poor most. A carbon tax has the exact same effect as inflation as it raises the price of everything. Vs say an progressive income tax.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097966775/inflation-poor-inc...
You can easily find tons of articles about how inflation hurts the poor most. A carbon tax has the exact same effect as inflation as it raises the price of everything. Vs say an progressive income tax.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097966775/inflation-poor-inc...
Europe has a carbon price and it hasn't wrecked their economy. They of course have other energy related problems but those aren't related to their carbon price.
There are a ton of taxes and fees that could be reduced because they're replaced by the revenue. Sales taxes and payroll taxes, for starters.
People live in tents because land is too expensive and local homeowners prevent affordable housing construction.
Agreed though it me be difficult to make it acceptable to masses, especially poorer folks who may be push towards voting red and effectively nullifying such change in short order. It may be more palatable to make it revenue neutral and give the money back as refund based on income.
Another way to think about it is the right price of carbon is (in steady state) is the cost to remove the equivalant amount of carbon if we dont want to worsen the situation. So a small portion of this revenue (carbon-tax) could be directed towards subsidizing properly vetted carbon removal techs. of course this number will be high initially so we'll have to taper in the change but it will also give chance for better public acceptance and maturity for carbon removal tech.
Another way to think about it is the right price of carbon is (in steady state) is the cost to remove the equivalant amount of carbon if we dont want to worsen the situation. So a small portion of this revenue (carbon-tax) could be directed towards subsidizing properly vetted carbon removal techs. of course this number will be high initially so we'll have to taper in the change but it will also give chance for better public acceptance and maturity for carbon removal tech.
It is the most simple and direct way, but look at what happened when energy prices went up this summer? A bunch of governments jumped in with special payments to offset the higher prices.
I don't think there is the political will to jack up carbon costs and force consumers to decide between paying or just using less.
I don't think there is the political will to jack up carbon costs and force consumers to decide between paying or just using less.
How do you sell that to voters?
Give all of the proceeds from the tax back to the people. Effectively, instead of all carbon-emitters paying the government, make it so that high-carbon-emitting people have to pay the low-carbon-emitting people.
And it reduces inequalities given that the 20% richest pollute way more than the 80% poorest.
Does it, though? For example, I would expect lower-income folks to be more likely to have older, less-fuel-efficient cars.
It does according to some studies.
"The trend is clear: Emissions generally rise with wealth...The richest 1%—... earning $109,000 a year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions."[1]
And at least according to that article, it's not due to international disparities in wealth.
"people’s emissions within countries now overwhelms the country-to-country disparities."
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissi...
"The trend is clear: Emissions generally rise with wealth...The richest 1%—... earning $109,000 a year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions."[1]
And at least according to that article, it's not due to international disparities in wealth.
"people’s emissions within countries now overwhelms the country-to-country disparities."
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissi...
They also fly less, have smaller cars/apartments, buy cars less frequently, and buy less stuff in general.
I think air flight is typically my largest source of CO2 emissions, and certainly will be this year.
I think air flight is typically my largest source of CO2 emissions, and certainly will be this year.
They don't fly cross country or internationally multiple times a year, a large fraction of people making 6+ figures do, and that generally swamps a clunker's usage. Also, all the carbon that goes into making new cars they buy, all the Amazon crap, and climate controlling huge houses.
Let alone moving around a building-sized yacht, building and maintaining mega mansions, or flying a private jet in the super-rich circles.
Let alone moving around a building-sized yacht, building and maintaining mega mansions, or flying a private jet in the super-rich circles.
So then they can car pool or catch the train for two months and pay for a better car with the extra freedom afforded by the emissions dividend which then costs them less in maintenance too.
Unfortunately, consumption taxes are always regressive, and a carbon tax would be no different. Even if you happened to receive more from a carbon dividend than you would pay in carbon taxes, you would "pay" for it by having to sacrifice goods and services that you otherwise would have consumed. I do support a carbon tax, but I think it's important to be realistic about its effects if we want it to be politically sustainable.
Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid.
Poor people are generally emitting well below the average currently. They take fewer flights, have smaller houses and buy less stuff in general. With current levels of emissions, they would be getting paid without reducing emissions at all.
Eventually after the rest of society reduces emissions, they might have to reduce emissions, but that would only be after the rest of society sacrifices much more consumption.
Poor people are generally emitting well below the average currently. They take fewer flights, have smaller houses and buy less stuff in general. With current levels of emissions, they would be getting paid without reducing emissions at all.
Eventually after the rest of society reduces emissions, they might have to reduce emissions, but that would only be after the rest of society sacrifices much more consumption.
>Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid.
You need to consider the downstream effects of the tax. The oil can only get taxed once, but the effects are compounded throughout the entire economy. For example, truck drivers would see dramatically increased expenses. For examples, truck drivers would have to pass on the cost of the fuel to transport freight. Meanwhile, other drivers will be forced to quit, which reduces our total freight throughput, which makes shipping even more expensive.
You need to consider the downstream effects of the tax. The oil can only get taxed once, but the effects are compounded throughout the entire economy. For example, truck drivers would see dramatically increased expenses. For examples, truck drivers would have to pass on the cost of the fuel to transport freight. Meanwhile, other drivers will be forced to quit, which reduces our total freight throughput, which makes shipping even more expensive.
This is a description of the system working. Both outcomes are cheaper for the customer.
Either the customer pays the retailer who pays the truck driver with the exact money the truck driver paid, or the customer does something cheaper and there is more money to go around because the customer is not paying for all the harms trucking does (including their kid's asthma bills and several dollars per gallon in road upkeep).
Either the customer pays the retailer who pays the truck driver with the exact money the truck driver paid, or the customer does something cheaper and there is more money to go around because the customer is not paying for all the harms trucking does (including their kid's asthma bills and several dollars per gallon in road upkeep).
Drivers would quit? Why wouldn't they raise their prices? Truck transport is an irreplaceable step in every company's sale of goods to another person or company. Well, a couple might be able to switch to trains, but they'd be the minority.
The only way demand for freight transport would go down is by reducing inefficient dead space in product packaging - ie exactly the type of efficiency improvement we would want from a tax.
The only way demand for freight transport would go down is by reducing inefficient dead space in product packaging - ie exactly the type of efficiency improvement we would want from a tax.
Those are weasel words.
If the money in is proportional to carbon, and the money out gets distributed perfectly evenly by population then the net result is progressive.
The only way that can not be true is if emissions scale up faster than income scales down or if we listen to people citing fake concern for the poor to enact a means testing program that redirects 90% of the money to serco and other cronies for enforcement.
If the money in is proportional to carbon, and the money out gets distributed perfectly evenly by population then the net result is progressive.
The only way that can not be true is if emissions scale up faster than income scales down or if we listen to people citing fake concern for the poor to enact a means testing program that redirects 90% of the money to serco and other cronies for enforcement.
>If the money in is proportional to carbon, and the money out gets distributed perfectly evenly by population then the net result is progressive.
Monetarily, sure, but in practice the effect would feel regressive because income scales more faster than emissions. Someone who is 1000x richer than average isn't going to live in 1000 houses, eat 1000x more beef, or drive 1000 cars simultaneously. This means that they're in a much better position to simply eat the cost of a carbon tax while the poor and middle class will actually have to make the sacrifices to reduce emissions by carpooling, turning the heat down in winter, etc.
Monetarily, sure, but in practice the effect would feel regressive because income scales more faster than emissions. Someone who is 1000x richer than average isn't going to live in 1000 houses, eat 1000x more beef, or drive 1000 cars simultaneously. This means that they're in a much better position to simply eat the cost of a carbon tax while the poor and middle class will actually have to make the sacrifices to reduce emissions by carpooling, turning the heat down in winter, etc.
The rich person will also receive a much smaller portion of their income in the rebate (and then pay 1000x the poor person for their flights and to fuel their yacht, and 100x to cool their house with glass walls and run their pool, etc etc).
The tax is mildly regressive and the rebate is extremely progressive. The poor person who makes all those lifestyle changes in response to the tax is much better off than they were as the upper bound on their contribution sans rebate is less than what they were paying to begin with.
So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash.
The tax is mildly regressive and the rebate is extremely progressive. The poor person who makes all those lifestyle changes in response to the tax is much better off than they were as the upper bound on their contribution sans rebate is less than what they were paying to begin with.
So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash.
>So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash.
They would have fewer options. They already have the choice to reduce to emissions without a carbon tax, and now they have financial pressure to go down that path.
And no, it's not "fake concern". As I've said many times, I'm pro carbon tax. I'm explaining the real economic factors that make the carbon tax politically infeasible. All it takes is a particularly cold month in the north, where people are far more reliant natural gas heating, for the pro-carbon tax camp to completely burn all their political capital for the next hundred years.
They would have fewer options. They already have the choice to reduce to emissions without a carbon tax, and now they have financial pressure to go down that path.
And no, it's not "fake concern". As I've said many times, I'm pro carbon tax. I'm explaining the real economic factors that make the carbon tax politically infeasible. All it takes is a particularly cold month in the north, where people are far more reliant natural gas heating, for the pro-carbon tax camp to completely burn all their political capital for the next hundred years.
You're lying though.
If you have $200 in your pocket for heating and natural gas heating costs $190 (because you have an equal share if the rebate but a smaller than equal share of the tax burden), you're far better off than if you have $100 in your pocket and it costs $100. If there are other options that cost $150, you now have the freedom to choose them when previously your only choice was gas.
If you have $200 in your pocket for heating and natural gas heating costs $190 (because you have an equal share if the rebate but a smaller than equal share of the tax burden), you're far better off than if you have $100 in your pocket and it costs $100. If there are other options that cost $150, you now have the freedom to choose them when previously your only choice was gas.
So rich people give a bunch of money to poor people, but that's regressive because the rich people don't notice it very much?
The poor don't have to sacrifice anything unless the average carbon emissions drop to below what the poor are currently consuming. Until that happens, the poor can continue to emit whatever they currently do and get paid for the fact that they don't consume more.
The poor don't have to sacrifice anything unless the average carbon emissions drop to below what the poor are currently consuming. Until that happens, the poor can continue to emit whatever they currently do and get paid for the fact that they don't consume more.
As I already said, the rich own businesses and those businesses won't sit still and pay carbon taxes if they can avoid them.
You could scale the refund according to income.
Problem is that the people who consume less than the average amount of carbon are generally located in cities and therefore already support liberal policies. You need to convince the conservative leaning suburbs, which are the hardest hit by a revenue neutral carbon tax because they have high incomes and don't live in high density areas.
It would incentivize local manufacturing by making it much more costly to use a globally-spanning supply chain. That would increase blue collar worker leverage. It's got a lot going for it, politically. The rich would experience quite a lot of inflation on travel and energy-intensive luxury goods, though, which wouldn't be offset for them.
Just like Canada did. By redistributing the tax revenue. Look up Carbon fee with dividends.
Use the monies to correspondingly reduce the sales tax.
Eliminate personal income tax.
The sales tax taxes everyone, so everyone would get a benefit from the carbon tax.
Does compliance with personal income tax not apply to certain people? Even poor W-2 people have to sign and mail a yearly form to get over-withheld payroll deductions refunded.
Something like 40% of Americans pay no income tax.
What % don't file federal income tax form each year?
And in the five states with no sales tax?
I agree, but only if property tax is replaced by a land value tax.
Be honest about how said voters' houses are going to be worthless when Phoenix runs out of water, California burns down, and Miami/NYC/New Orleans are under water.
Also, be honest about how we're rapidly barreling toward the end of economic growth because the weather keeps destroying industrial and agricultural production.
Also, be honest about how we're rapidly barreling toward the end of economic growth because the weather keeps destroying industrial and agricultural production.
The only way Phoenix will run out of water is if the government does not allow the price of water to be the free market price.
What exactly is the "free market price" for water? Are you suggesting reticulated water supply for a city should be achieved via competing free enterprises? Is there anywhere in the world where that's worked well?
The free market price is the price set by Supply & Demand.
That's a non-answer unless customers can meaningfully choose where/how to obtain their regular water supply and how much to pay for it. I'm genuinely curious if that's true in any modern cities.
Edit: Santiago in Chile seems to be close to such a case. Interestingly, 70% of the population want to see a return to public ownership of water rights. And it's pretty hard to find evidence having private ownership of water rights is helping ensure long term supply for all.
Edit: Santiago in Chile seems to be close to such a case. Interestingly, 70% of the population want to see a return to public ownership of water rights. And it's pretty hard to find evidence having private ownership of water rights is helping ensure long term supply for all.
Has public ownership shown it's better?
There's far too few data points to make a meaningful comparison - but water supply has been a public good since Assyrian times. I was only objecting to your claim that if the price of water was somehow established via the free market it would magically ensure it never ran out.
Supply&Demand can indeed appear to work like magic.
Increasing the price causes demand to drop. Increasing it so the demand matches the supply means no shortage.
Increasing the price causes demand to drop. Increasing it so the demand matches the supply means no shortage.
How someone clearly intelligent enough to design parts at Boeing can parrot statements like that does my head in.
I'm not an economist at all, but I have at least a passing familiarity with elasticity of demand (which is pretty damn low for water, given it's a basic biological need with zero satisfactory substitutes, and that the excess use of brings little immediate gratification).
If you want to claim higher prices for water guarantee that free enterprise will always invest what's necessary to ensure its availability I'd like to see the evidence for it.
The fact that you are so nonchalantly dismissing the statement of someone like Walter should make you take a long hard look at yourself, your beliefs and your though processes.
Water usage is just as elastic as any other consumption behavior. Heck, I halved mine this year by simply selectively letting parts of my yard dry up in this hot summer. And enterprises can pass increased prices on to the final product.
Water usage is just as elastic as any other consumption behavior. Heck, I halved mine this year by simply selectively letting parts of my yard dry up in this hot summer. And enterprises can pass increased prices on to the final product.
"Look, your business is going bankrupt because it's now too expensive to water your crops compared to the price they would fetch if sold, but that doesn't mean there's a water shortage! You just can't afford it!"
Enterprises have to cope with price increases all the time. My friends building houses have seen the price for iron multiplying over the year, but construction still goes on.
Some businesses die but the others adapt and find solutions. It’s where human creativity and innovation shines. An expensive item is a great motivator to find alternatives.
Some businesses die but the others adapt and find solutions. It’s where human creativity and innovation shines. An expensive item is a great motivator to find alternatives.
If they drain the aquifers and a bad drought hits for long enough, they'll run out of affordable water.
It would be more appropriate to say that Phoenix will run out of water if the price of water is too low.
The voters will cast a judgement about whether that is hysterical nonsense or not.
Sorry, but most people don't believe that or you. Try reading sources outside your bubble.
Reputable sources explaining that climate change won't destroy trillions of dollar of assets and GDP? Seems like I am in that bubble too. Could you lay them down please?
Reputable sources say that "California will burn down" and "NYC will be under water"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Unless OP is just using hyperbole to make a point, in which case maybe they shouldn't.
Unless OP is just using hyperbole to make a point, in which case maybe they shouldn't.
Search for New York City flood walls.
You must have heard about the fires in California in the last few years, right? Look up what's happened to air quality on the west coast from the smoke.
You must have heard about the fires in California in the last few years, right? Look up what's happened to air quality on the west coast from the smoke.
True or false, reputable sources or not, there are still plenty of people in the US -- enough to affect the outcomes of elections, at least -- who just do not and will not believe it.
In the USA. Or, China?
28% of Americans flat out oppose America becoming carbon neutral by 2050 [1], and that's before we even ask them how much they're willing to pay. Only 31% supports phasing out fossil fuels completely.
I don't think "virtue signaling" (or its lack) is the problem.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/americans-lar...
I don't think "virtue signaling" (or its lack) is the problem.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/americans-lar...
But why don't they want to phase it out? There could be some other reasons like:
1. a job tied to fossil fuels
2. concerns that energy prices will go up without fossil fuels
3. lack of alternatives for things like trucks etc.
4. Religious beliefs.
5. Trolling the libs.
6. Belief that carbon taxation is a scheme to impoverish their nation for social justice.
7. Belief that global warming will be good for their community.Naive in the extreme. See other comments about democracy. Also, see history about revolts.
The best way is to make the alternatives to anything you want to get rid of overwhelmingly more attractive to decision making entities (people, companies, etc.), who will then choose with their free will. Not easy to do, but some are working on it.
The best way is to make the alternatives to anything you want to get rid of overwhelmingly more attractive to decision making entities (people, companies, etc.), who will then choose with their free will. Not easy to do, but some are working on it.
as they are extracted from the earth. the refining process has non-trivial carbon emissions, and that should be captured in any carbon tax schemes.
But the politics suck so it'll never happen.
It's is not simple at all to tax fuel at the source!!
You have completely forgotten about import/export. If you tax only American fuel, then American exports become very expensive, while imports become cheap.
Guess what happens next?
Setting up a tax scheme for fuel that taking into account import/export is incredibly complicated, your system is probably the most complex solution there is!
You have completely forgotten about import/export. If you tax only American fuel, then American exports become very expensive, while imports become cheap.
Guess what happens next?
Setting up a tax scheme for fuel that taking into account import/export is incredibly complicated, your system is probably the most complex solution there is!
This is effectively the corporations carbon taxing themselves, because they know a carbon tax is the sensible answer, but politics is holding it up in certain regions.
Just like the US car manufacturers don't really want Democrats and Repbulicans raising and lowering emissions standards every four years, big corps (other than coal producers maybe) don't really want the carbon tax to go up and down on a political whim. This is basically them setting aside the carbon tax money, and applying the carbon tax pressure to themselves internally, so they end up in the same place as a carbon tax would lead them.
As with a pure cabon tax, in many ways it doesn't matter what the money is spent on. As long as there is a financial disincentive for people to burn carbon when there's an alternative, it all kind of works out.
Just like the US car manufacturers don't really want Democrats and Repbulicans raising and lowering emissions standards every four years, big corps (other than coal producers maybe) don't really want the carbon tax to go up and down on a political whim. This is basically them setting aside the carbon tax money, and applying the carbon tax pressure to themselves internally, so they end up in the same place as a carbon tax would lead them.
As with a pure cabon tax, in many ways it doesn't matter what the money is spent on. As long as there is a financial disincentive for people to burn carbon when there's an alternative, it all kind of works out.
This is exactly what happens when everything is turned into money. More so when the fiat money can be borrowed from the future, you are essentially kicking the can down the road.
What next? Carbon emission futures? A thriving market where the futures are traded? All the while the emissions continue abated and even increase.
What next? Carbon emission futures? A thriving market where the futures are traded? All the while the emissions continue abated and even increase.
https://www.theice.com/market-data/indices/commodity-indices...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi...
:D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi...
:D
But can I buy these as an etf (or etn or whatever)
Honestly, hoarding carbon certificates and selling them for a big profit is more effective at curbing CO2 emissions than any carbon offset program.
Only if those credits come from an emission reducing activity and not, say, burning old growth tasmanian forest for energy.
Carbon emission futures can be traded in many developed markets nowadays...
Overall, I struggle to see how this is a bad thing. Take the example at the start of the article:
1. Two decades ago, the UN set up a program for selling voluntary carbon credits under the assumption that renewables would not be price-competitive for a very long time, if ever, and would therefore need a subsidy.
2. Companies started buying those credits, even though they didn't have to, just to look good to consumers. As a result, the subsidy didn't cost taxpayers a dime.
3. Renewable technology developed faster than expected (in part due to the subsidy). Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels and projects would be built even if companies didn't buy the credits.
People should be absolutely thrilled by this outcome.
1. Two decades ago, the UN set up a program for selling voluntary carbon credits under the assumption that renewables would not be price-competitive for a very long time, if ever, and would therefore need a subsidy.
2. Companies started buying those credits, even though they didn't have to, just to look good to consumers. As a result, the subsidy didn't cost taxpayers a dime.
3. Renewable technology developed faster than expected (in part due to the subsidy). Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels and projects would be built even if companies didn't buy the credits.
People should be absolutely thrilled by this outcome.
The program itself, with the intention and success of making renewables competitive, is absolutely a good thing.
It's just not working quite as well as it could, because offset companies cheat. Carbon offsets now don't really help with the climate, and their price doesn't reflect the real cost of the emissions. And in the process, companies can present themselves as "carbon-neutral" when they really aren't, and thus can avoid consumer or even further regulatory actions.
It's just not working quite as well as it could, because offset companies cheat. Carbon offsets now don't really help with the climate, and their price doesn't reflect the real cost of the emissions. And in the process, companies can present themselves as "carbon-neutral" when they really aren't, and thus can avoid consumer or even further regulatory actions.
> Now renewables are competitive with fossil fuels
This isn't true. They might be competitive in a shallow sense (price per kWh) but in terms of benefit (specifically, reliability and output capacity), they're barely a sniff—hence the nightmare in Europe right now.
That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
This isn't true. They might be competitive in a shallow sense (price per kWh) but in terms of benefit (specifically, reliability and output capacity), they're barely a sniff—hence the nightmare in Europe right now.
That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
> hence the nightmare in Europe right now.
How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. If they had more fossil fuel plants and less wind and solar they'd have to import even more fossil fuels.
> That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough. If they had more fossil fuel plants and less wind and solar they'd have to import even more fossil fuels.
> That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
> How would being more reliant on fossil fuels help them now? The problem is they are struggling to import enough.
Right. That problem exists because they drew back their own fossil fuel production to switch to renewables which are not providing the commensurate energy required, forcing them to go to outside providers.
> False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh.
Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work.
You're releasing insane amounts of emissions and wasting tons of energy just to say you're not on paper. It's absolute lunacy.
Right. That problem exists because they drew back their own fossil fuel production to switch to renewables which are not providing the commensurate energy required, forcing them to go to outside providers.
> False. There have been dozens of lifecycle analysis studies they find a more than 10x advantage of solar and wind over gas per kwh.
Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work.
You're releasing insane amounts of emissions and wasting tons of energy just to say you're not on paper. It's absolute lunacy.
> Right. That problem exists because they drew back their own fossil fuel production to switch to renewables which are not providing the commensurate energy required, forcing them to go to outside providers.
The North Sea was by far their biggest field for oil and gas and it is in sharp decline despite continued exploration. Even Norway is still exploring. The other big producer was the Netherlands, they closed their gas field because of earthquakes.
> Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work.
As I said, dozens of life cycle analysis studies take all of this into account and come to the conclusion of a more than 10x advantage.
The North Sea was by far their biggest field for oil and gas and it is in sharp decline despite continued exploration. Even Norway is still exploring. The other big producer was the Netherlands, they closed their gas field because of earthquakes.
> Now do the factories to produce the components in the renewables, the trucks to ship the components, the equipment to install the components, the trucks to get the workers to maintain the components, etc. Batteries? You need massive trucks that can only run on diesel to mine the metals necessary to make them work.
As I said, dozens of life cycle analysis studies take all of this into account and come to the conclusion of a more than 10x advantage.
From their wikipedia link:
> The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.
So the studies should already be including everything you mentioned.
> The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.
So the studies should already be including everything you mentioned.
That still doesn't account for the scale of deployment necessary to make up for the missing power requirements (the entire point I'm making) which, if I had to guess, would make this "10x" number irrelevant, if not laughable.
For example, a quick check [1]:
> Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity.
[1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of...
I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.
For example, a quick check [1]:
> Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity.
[1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of...
I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.
Those figures are intentionally presented in as misleading as possible a way.
Cost of net power with sufficient availability is the relevant metric, as that's how things are compared cost wise.
So if we take the figures from the article, you're comparing a 128MW net wind farm (which is around $30/MWh) to a 1681MW coal plant (which is around $60/MWh for existing plants) and then doing a shocked pikachu face when that specific wind farm spends some time producing 36MW.
Put another wind farm in an uncorrelated or anticorrelated area, and you are paying the same per MW on the worst month, but you have 100% surplus to export or incentivise storage development in the average month.
Cost of net power with sufficient availability is the relevant metric, as that's how things are compared cost wise.
So if we take the figures from the article, you're comparing a 128MW net wind farm (which is around $30/MWh) to a 1681MW coal plant (which is around $60/MWh for existing plants) and then doing a shocked pikachu face when that specific wind farm spends some time producing 36MW.
Put another wind farm in an uncorrelated or anticorrelated area, and you are paying the same per MW on the worst month, but you have 100% surplus to export or incentivise storage development in the average month.
> hence the nightmare in Europe right now.
Ah yes. Everything that is not solar or wind had massive failures due to market and climate.
The small contribution from the solar and wind is operating about as per normal.
Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little.
What a hilariously bad argument.
> That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
This is a strict multiple of energy payback time, which is somewhere between 6 months and 5 years with current generation panels, and 1 month to 3 years with wind. Depending on how far down the fossil fuel pipeline that goes up a bit, but you have to multiply your fossil fuels by the same factor. It's so far from equal that it's not worth considering, and it gets further from equal as the renewable portion of silicon refining and composite manufacture increase.
Ah yes. Everything that is not solar or wind had massive failures due to market and climate.
The small contribution from the solar and wind is operating about as per normal.
Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little.
What a hilariously bad argument.
> That doesn't even factor in the fossil fuels and emissions that need to be expended to create those renewables (which are greater than the individual renewable will ever offset in its lifetime).
This is a strict multiple of energy payback time, which is somewhere between 6 months and 5 years with current generation panels, and 1 month to 3 years with wind. Depending on how far down the fossil fuel pipeline that goes up a bit, but you have to multiply your fossil fuels by the same factor. It's so far from equal that it's not worth considering, and it gets further from equal as the renewable portion of silicon refining and composite manufacture increase.
> Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little.
Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production.
That led to reliance on third-party producers like Russia for actual baseload energy (because they're well aware renewables can't/won't cut it) and then had the bright idea to place sanctions on Russia who promptly cut them off.
The whole thing is a giant circle jerk to fit into the PCA/ESG scams (which are low-key money laundering operations). The solution to climate change was/is nuclear power (and stuff like this [1]), which go figure, the same malthusian parasites who have found a blood source in government and NGOs continue to ignore in favor of less-viable solutions (wind, solar, and batteries).
The demise of the whole thing is all but booked and it's deeply enjoyable to watch all of the zealots backing it scramble. I only hope that their foolishness doesn't lead to people being hurt/killed.
[1] https://carbonengineering.com/
Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production.
That led to reliance on third-party producers like Russia for actual baseload energy (because they're well aware renewables can't/won't cut it) and then had the bright idea to place sanctions on Russia who promptly cut them off.
The whole thing is a giant circle jerk to fit into the PCA/ESG scams (which are low-key money laundering operations). The solution to climate change was/is nuclear power (and stuff like this [1]), which go figure, the same malthusian parasites who have found a blood source in government and NGOs continue to ignore in favor of less-viable solutions (wind, solar, and batteries).
The demise of the whole thing is all but booked and it's deeply enjoyable to watch all of the zealots backing it scramble. I only hope that their foolishness doesn't lead to people being hurt/killed.
[1] https://carbonengineering.com/
> Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production.
Yes that's exactly what you said. You didn't say 'the total amount of slack in the system was reduced' or 'old powerplants were turned off before having a full replacement'. You framed it as a consequence of using wind and solar.
And keeping the nuclear power plants on wouldn't have helped during the heat wave because they were all failing too.
Yes that's exactly what you said. You didn't say 'the total amount of slack in the system was reduced' or 'old powerplants were turned off before having a full replacement'. You framed it as a consequence of using wind and solar.
And keeping the nuclear power plants on wouldn't have helped during the heat wave because they were all failing too.
No, that’s what you inferred and presented as something I said.
They weren’t failing. They voted to phase them out [1].
And France made a similar bonehead mistake: there were regulations put in place by the government after the 2003 heatwave regarding water temperature limits [2] and wildlife which forced them to be powered down. Hilariously enough, they chose to do this not just during a heatwave, but also when there was a massive maintenance backlog due to the pandemic.
So, yes, they would have helped immensely.
As per usual, the government and their zealots created the mess and blamed it on someone else. These people are halfwits and their destruction will be of great benefit and security to humanity.
[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_ph...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...
They weren’t failing. They voted to phase them out [1].
And France made a similar bonehead mistake: there were regulations put in place by the government after the 2003 heatwave regarding water temperature limits [2] and wildlife which forced them to be powered down. Hilariously enough, they chose to do this not just during a heatwave, but also when there was a massive maintenance backlog due to the pandemic.
So, yes, they would have helped immensely.
As per usual, the government and their zealots created the mess and blamed it on someone else. These people are halfwits and their destruction will be of great benefit and security to humanity.
[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_ph...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...
So how does nuclear, gas and coal being vulnerable to politicking making it less reliable relate to the wind and solar which was working just fine? Also being able to have a backlog of maintenance because your power generation is incredibly fragile and centralised sounds really bad. If only there was another way.
You're really selling small modular power generation with fewer failure modes quite well here. You're making the other options sound less reliable with each comment. Do you work for the solar lobby?
You're really selling small modular power generation with fewer failure modes quite well here. You're making the other options sound less reliable with each comment. Do you work for the solar lobby?
There was a year when Germany didn't build more solar and wind plants. The output increased 10% just from more extreme weather alone.
> These days, the cost of generating electricity from such sources (wind/solar) is roughly on par with that of fossil fuels.
I've never seen a cost analysis that takes into account the unreliability of sources that rely on sun or wind. I don't know exactly how a proper model would account for these factors, but surely ignoring the unreliability isn't the right answer.
I've never seen a cost analysis that takes into account the unreliability of sources that rely on sun or wind. I don't know exactly how a proper model would account for these factors, but surely ignoring the unreliability isn't the right answer.
What do you mean by unreliability?
One of the reasons that solar projects are so easy to finance is because of their predictability and the fact they can be accurately predicted to correlate with peak demand periods years in the future.
You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.
One of the reasons that solar projects are so easy to finance is because of their predictability and the fact they can be accurately predicted to correlate with peak demand periods years in the future.
You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.
> What do you mean by unreliability?
I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can greatly affect solar power generation.
It is nice that the sun is up during part of daily peak demand and is strongest during the season when AC is heavily used. But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy.
> You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.
The point is that if you are looking at the cost of building a solar or wind farm you have to account for the fact that you cannot shut down another power source one-for-one.
If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can greatly affect solar power generation.
It is nice that the sun is up during part of daily peak demand and is strongest during the season when AC is heavily used. But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy.
> You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.
The point is that if you are looking at the cost of building a solar or wind farm you have to account for the fact that you cannot shut down another power source one-for-one.
If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
> But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy.
No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later"
> If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money.
This isn't particularly complicated.
No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later"
> If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money.
This isn't particularly complicated.
Your first claim seems plausible, but apparently is wrong. Peak demand appears to be after noon all over. In some places it's several hours after. [1]
Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again.
1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again.
1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
The grid reported peak doesn't include home rooftop or other behind-the-meter solar, that's why the California grid demand peak has shifted later over the last few years, as well as (but not as much as) the net peak that doesn't count the utility scale solar.
You can also choose when you want the peak to occur to some degree, by positioning your panels in both location and direction. Semi-random alignment combined with solar noon happening over a hour for a timezone means the 'peak' is often rounded and flattened, and shifted in the direction of the solar compared with the load.
e.g. if you have a coastal area with demand on the coast and utility solar mostly inland, then you get a different timeshift between load and supply depending on where the coast is positioned in a West-East direction.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue regarding price, but since renewables are cheaper than even running existing fossil fuel plants, I'm not sure it matters.
You can also choose when you want the peak to occur to some degree, by positioning your panels in both location and direction. Semi-random alignment combined with solar noon happening over a hour for a timezone means the 'peak' is often rounded and flattened, and shifted in the direction of the solar compared with the load.
e.g. if you have a coastal area with demand on the coast and utility solar mostly inland, then you get a different timeshift between load and supply depending on where the coast is positioned in a West-East direction.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue regarding price, but since renewables are cheaper than even running existing fossil fuel plants, I'm not sure it matters.
Imagine a salesman comes to your door selling residential cellular internet. He says it will cost the same as your existing wired internet, and will offer the same speeds.
The benefit is that it will have a lower carbon footprint because the ISP's power is provided exclusively by wind and solar. The downside is that it will only run when there is wind power or solar power available.
Would you make the switch?
The benefit is that it will have a lower carbon footprint because the ISP's power is provided exclusively by wind and solar. The downside is that it will only run when there is wind power or solar power available.
Would you make the switch?
We dont need weird analogies, We're rolling out renewables across the world, at an astounding pace because its cheaper and better, and continues to get cheaper and better.
[deleted]
They are reliable only on average and on long time scales. On one particularly abnormal weather day, do you just say: "sorry, we only have 50% power today".
PV is so cheap that if it was only 50%, one would just install twice as much.
I think the actual number may be 90% (daytime; obviously more like 100% at night, for which you have some storage).
But at this scale you want multiple types of power anyway just to avoid correlated failures, cf. “all of our coal plants have had to shut down at the same time because the coal miners organised a national strike”.
Question then is: is the cheapest solution to this already green, and if not, what do we need to invent such that the cheapest solution is also green?
From what I’ve seen, batteries at this scale are currently on par with nuclear for cost, but that’s the easiest hurdle to pass given how expensive nuclear is. Global grid is theoretically fine, and the purchase cost isn’t ridiculous, but I don’t know anything about geopolitical issues so it could be anything from “a way to bring the world together” to “laughably naive”, and I don’t know anything about ongoing maintenance costs. Hydrogen is cheap, I don’t know the metallurgy issues. Hydro is great, but has its own issues.
I think the actual number may be 90% (daytime; obviously more like 100% at night, for which you have some storage).
But at this scale you want multiple types of power anyway just to avoid correlated failures, cf. “all of our coal plants have had to shut down at the same time because the coal miners organised a national strike”.
Question then is: is the cheapest solution to this already green, and if not, what do we need to invent such that the cheapest solution is also green?
From what I’ve seen, batteries at this scale are currently on par with nuclear for cost, but that’s the easiest hurdle to pass given how expensive nuclear is. Global grid is theoretically fine, and the purchase cost isn’t ridiculous, but I don’t know anything about geopolitical issues so it could be anything from “a way to bring the world together” to “laughably naive”, and I don’t know anything about ongoing maintenance costs. Hydrogen is cheap, I don’t know the metallurgy issues. Hydro is great, but has its own issues.
This is only an issue once we stop having electricity sources that can be turned on reasonably quickly when wind or sun is under producing (such as natural gas and, to some extent, hydro electric).
Since wind/solar is still a small part of the overall contribution, there is no need to model unreliability.
Ideally this would BECOME an issue in the future.
Since wind/solar is still a small part of the overall contribution, there is no need to model unreliability.
Ideally this would BECOME an issue in the future.
Ask the western US if it is an issue right now. If you don't hear back it's because their power is out.
I didn't realize California etc. had hit the level of dependency on solar/wind where this could be a factor. Good on them.
The people who lost power and couldn't cool themselves down in 100 degree weather might not agree with your congratulations from afar. They might also not like that their energy costs are dramatically higher than even in neighboring states.
But if it makes you feel better, I guess that makes it all good, right?
But if it makes you feel better, I guess that makes it all good, right?
I was being sarcastic. California gets 17% of their electricity from solar and 8% wind, but their current issues are during a sunny heat wave so solar should be going like gangbusters.
As noted elsewhere, solar peak is at noon and usage peak is hours later. Wind power happens whenever the wind blows.
The problem is that they have taken other more reliable sources offline. If the 25% you reference were more reliable they wouldn't have to warn people about power usage just in case it got cloudy or wasn't breezy enough. I read that they had to turn off a desalination plant because of the power crunch. That makes their drought even worse. Doesn't sound like winning to me.
The problem is that they have taken other more reliable sources offline. If the 25% you reference were more reliable they wouldn't have to warn people about power usage just in case it got cloudy or wasn't breezy enough. I read that they had to turn off a desalination plant because of the power crunch. That makes their drought even worse. Doesn't sound like winning to me.
Turning off desalination plant if it is easy to turn on-and-off seems like one of the smart use cases. Just need to have it to have overprovisioned size so that it can stock pile water when power is available at reasonable rates. And that really isn't a complex thing, we have been doing it for millenia now.
Do you demand with downtime for coal, for fixing the shoot? The scrubber? The ash removal?
Or for hydro? With dam work? Generator replacement (explosion at Hoover dam this year)
Or nuclear, for fuel rod changeouts?
While solar has more nightly downtime at non-peak demand, both wind and solar are often configured in volumes and geo distributions that reduce maintenance outage (a function of lower output per unit)
Or for hydro? With dam work? Generator replacement (explosion at Hoover dam this year)
Or nuclear, for fuel rod changeouts?
While solar has more nightly downtime at non-peak demand, both wind and solar are often configured in volumes and geo distributions that reduce maintenance outage (a function of lower output per unit)
All of these examples sound like they can be scheduled. You cannot schedule the sun and wind. You can predict the sun of course and it's nice that it sometimes lines up with peak usage.
I go back and forth on the push for carbon neutrality for large companies (as opposed to some form of carbon tax). I'll give a few examples that I've seen first-hand in my work as a consultant.
1. A large state-owned African agricultural company is using satellite and soil-sample data to measure the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural land if certain farming techniques are used (no-till, etc). They use satellite and soil-sample data feeding into a biological model implemented in fortran (from some academic paper that may or may not be replicated) for the estimation. The plan is to go to farmers and ask them to switch the technique. The company would sell carbon credits, give the participating farmers a cut and keep the rest. This has great potential! but the large-scale implementation is very difficult manage. The company would at least need to randomly check in on participating farmers. It should also take soil samples over time to make sure the technique is working. Carbon credit sellers should be auditable, but the government relations and size of the company might make that difficult to do rigorously.
2. An analytics tool hopes to help large companies identify the parts of their supply chain that can reduce the overall carbon emissions of a product with the lowest price increase to the end-consumer. Think about BMW sourcing steel from China for example. If this helps companies actively manage their supply chain in order to lower emissions, then suppliers will adopt to low-carbon techniques over time. The problem is that it requires suppliers to disclose their emissions accurately. Many supply chains in carbon-intensive industries are global and fragmented. If a bad-actor supplier on the other side of the world lied and got caught, they could just change their name and carry on.
3. Global supply chains also present issues with carbon taxes at the drilling/mining site. You can't force foreign countries to tax this (and if you did they would be incentivized to cheat), and you can't force foreign companies to accurately disclose energy use. A domestic energy tax would make local manufacturing uncompetitive, which is something most countries are not willing to sacrifice.
The debate between carbon neutrality vs carbon/extraction taxes is the choice between inventing an entire new bureaucracy of enforcement (carbon audits, carbon disclosure, etc) or the impossible task of rallying and enforcing global action (every country imposes the same tax, no exceptions). As an engineer, I understand the seeming beauty and efficiency of the second option, but I think the first is ultimately going to be our best bet.
1. A large state-owned African agricultural company is using satellite and soil-sample data to measure the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural land if certain farming techniques are used (no-till, etc). They use satellite and soil-sample data feeding into a biological model implemented in fortran (from some academic paper that may or may not be replicated) for the estimation. The plan is to go to farmers and ask them to switch the technique. The company would sell carbon credits, give the participating farmers a cut and keep the rest. This has great potential! but the large-scale implementation is very difficult manage. The company would at least need to randomly check in on participating farmers. It should also take soil samples over time to make sure the technique is working. Carbon credit sellers should be auditable, but the government relations and size of the company might make that difficult to do rigorously.
2. An analytics tool hopes to help large companies identify the parts of their supply chain that can reduce the overall carbon emissions of a product with the lowest price increase to the end-consumer. Think about BMW sourcing steel from China for example. If this helps companies actively manage their supply chain in order to lower emissions, then suppliers will adopt to low-carbon techniques over time. The problem is that it requires suppliers to disclose their emissions accurately. Many supply chains in carbon-intensive industries are global and fragmented. If a bad-actor supplier on the other side of the world lied and got caught, they could just change their name and carry on.
3. Global supply chains also present issues with carbon taxes at the drilling/mining site. You can't force foreign countries to tax this (and if you did they would be incentivized to cheat), and you can't force foreign companies to accurately disclose energy use. A domestic energy tax would make local manufacturing uncompetitive, which is something most countries are not willing to sacrifice.
The debate between carbon neutrality vs carbon/extraction taxes is the choice between inventing an entire new bureaucracy of enforcement (carbon audits, carbon disclosure, etc) or the impossible task of rallying and enforcing global action (every country imposes the same tax, no exceptions). As an engineer, I understand the seeming beauty and efficiency of the second option, but I think the first is ultimately going to be our best bet.
> A domestic energy tax would make local manufacturing uncompetitive
That's what tariffs are for? Products from countries that don't tax carbon could just get a carbon tariff added on import.
That's what tariffs are for? Products from countries that don't tax carbon could just get a carbon tariff added on import.
Destroys the countries export potential to countries that don't have a carbon tax or are willing to import from countries that don't.
Great point. This would be great for a net importer country like the US. Germany (net exporter) wants their goods competitive abroad.
On the other hand, if the US and other high-consumption countries collaborated on this it would probably be effective.
Like I said, I go back and forth on it. Or better put, I think both approaches are valid albeit with big implementation challenges.
On the other hand, if the US and other high-consumption countries collaborated on this it would probably be effective.
Like I said, I go back and forth on it. Or better put, I think both approaches are valid albeit with big implementation challenges.
> This would be great for a net importer country like the US. Germany (net exporter) wants their goods competitive abroad.
Ironically, Germany has a fuel tax https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/energiestg/__2.html that is 4 times as high as that of California https://www.foxla.com/news/californias-gas-tax-goes-up-july-... , which apparently has the highest fuel tax in the US.
Ironically, Germany has a fuel tax https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/energiestg/__2.html that is 4 times as high as that of California https://www.foxla.com/news/californias-gas-tax-goes-up-july-... , which apparently has the highest fuel tax in the US.
Tax fuel sources by amount of carbon dioxide that they release. It will increase the cost of electricity generated from those sources and discourage their use. Use the tax money to fund green energy research, green energy production, carbon capture, etc.
Don't fight the market, act on the source and the market will adjust.
Don't fight the market, act on the source and the market will adjust.
I installed solar panels on my roof and one of things you can do is then sell your home carbon credit on the market to some buyer.
Which basically means that while you are still offsetting carbon by generating solar on your roof - since you've sold your share - that morally you are still responsible for your carbon footprint.
I opted not to sell mine. It wasn't worth a ton of money and part of the reason I got solar anyways is to reduce the carbon footprint. It also seemed crazy to me that this was even an option that existed.
Which basically means that while you are still offsetting carbon by generating solar on your roof - since you've sold your share - that morally you are still responsible for your carbon footprint.
I opted not to sell mine. It wasn't worth a ton of money and part of the reason I got solar anyways is to reduce the carbon footprint. It also seemed crazy to me that this was even an option that existed.
Even if you sell, you are still reducing the carbon footprint by 50% though.
Wait, financialization isn't the solution to every problem? Shocker
It would be, if people were actually willing to put their money where their mouth is and invest some of their own cash to take certificates off the market.
Apparently, people are unwilling to do so in meaningful numbers.
Ergo: They do not see this as an actual problem, which means problem is solved. We just need to accept that.
Apparently, people are unwilling to do so in meaningful numbers.
Ergo: They do not see this as an actual problem, which means problem is solved. We just need to accept that.
But carbon credits were never marketed as a way for people to retire carbon debt - they were presented as a way to implement the 'polluter pays' principle using the 'proven' mechanisms of the market.
I do think markets are a very useful social technology for allocating resources. But they can also be abused for distributing liability and they're slow. There's a reason most polities abandon the market model for urgent tasks like firefighting.
I do think markets are a very useful social technology for allocating resources. But they can also be abused for distributing liability and they're slow. There's a reason most polities abandon the market model for urgent tasks like firefighting.
In all fairness, that sounds a lot like "The citizenry is too stupid to get it, so now we force our will upon them." or, and that's even less charitable, "the section of the citizenry that wants carbon emission deceleration does want others to pay for it."
At some point, I think we need to decide if we want to continue the world trying to be democratic, or if we want more-or-less benevolent, eco-dictatorships.
At some point, I think we need to decide if we want to continue the world trying to be democratic, or if we want more-or-less benevolent, eco-dictatorships.
What if we didn't use plain old finance to solve the problem, but used smart contracts that can be traced down to the originator of the problem, then fine the entire responsible chain if there is a violation?
Or, hear me out, what if we just used the plain old contracts that already exist... this article came out of an investigation of plain old contracts.
Plain old contracts != smart contracts
That's my point, this could be accomplished with plain old contracts ...
Perhaps in theory ...
Fine but the development of smart contract controlled police killer bots is lagging behind, we don't have a way to enforce the smart contracts yet.
Carbon offsets are like recycling plastic. The better alternative to recycling plastic is not producing and buying stuff made out of plastic in the first place.
If you're looking for an alternative to the (very problematic) carbon offset (CO), check out Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). COs are designed to incentives reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, but verification and traceability problems make it hard for them to achieve that goal. RECs are designed to incentivize the construction of renewable energy based power plants. They're easier to monitor because verification is handled by grid operators checking the number on the meter.
We (Jasmine (YC-S22)) (https://www.jasmine.energy/) are building a RECs exchange. Governments handle REC verification. We handle liquidity, efficiency, and traceability.
We (Jasmine (YC-S22)) (https://www.jasmine.energy/) are building a RECs exchange. Governments handle REC verification. We handle liquidity, efficiency, and traceability.
Though ironically, this is exactly what is being attacked by the article.
They're arguing that giving money to renewables producers should only be done, if the renewable wouldn't otherwise be a viable business, and that some credits are from older renewable energy projects that got grandfathered in, before the offset organisations decided that they could spend their money more effectively elsewhere since the renewables would get built anyway.
They're arguing that giving money to renewables producers should only be done, if the renewable wouldn't otherwise be a viable business, and that some credits are from older renewable energy projects that got grandfathered in, before the offset organisations decided that they could spend their money more effectively elsewhere since the renewables would get built anyway.
The UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is very different from Renewable Energy Certificate programs. CDM project, as a type off Carbon Offset, are supposed to be targeted have "additionality," meaning, as you said, that the project wouldn't exist if not for the subsidy.
RECs are supposed to be universal because they're about tracking the production/consumption of all renewable energy on the grid. That universality makes fraud much harder.
RECs are supposed to be universal because they're about tracking the production/consumption of all renewable energy on the grid. That universality makes fraud much harder.
Unbundled RECs have the exact same "additionality" issue, and I'm assuming if you're creating a market for all renewable energy on the grid, you are talking about unbundled RECs.
This quote on your site appears to confirm that:
> Most generators don't know they are accruing valuable credits they can sell. If you are a generator selling these credits you could off-set the cost of your system.
This quote on your site appears to confirm that:
> Most generators don't know they are accruing valuable credits they can sell. If you are a generator selling these credits you could off-set the cost of your system.
Yeah, that quote means that the person who didn't know about them will likely not realize that when they sell them, they're essentially no longer using renewable energy themselves.
I'm selling carbon credits too, by the way. If you want to be absolved of your sins of pollution, just send me money and I'll email you an official Cyberdog Planetary Salvation Certification. It's very easy. I'll use all funds to plant trees or whatever, minus obligatory administration fees (don't worry about it). Just ping me with however many credits you need and I'll send you my CashApp tag or Dogecoin wallet address.
Funnily enough, someone did more or less what you did a few years back (but as actual fraud). https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/renewable-fuels-f...
A guy was literally making up RINs (renewable identification numbers) in a spreadsheet and selling them to companies as renewable energy credits. The only reason he got caught is because he was buying a bunch of sports cars and leaving them parked all over his neighborhood, leading his neighbors to assume he was a drug dealer.
A guy was literally making up RINs (renewable identification numbers) in a spreadsheet and selling them to companies as renewable energy credits. The only reason he got caught is because he was buying a bunch of sports cars and leaving them parked all over his neighborhood, leading his neighbors to assume he was a drug dealer.
> I'll use all funds to plant trees or whatever,
It's even dumber than that. You just have to promise not to chop down some existing trees that you would chop down in the absence of payments. Nevermind if you really would chop them down or not. Or if you've already sold the same promise on the same grove of trees to another buyer.
It's even dumber than that. You just have to promise not to chop down some existing trees that you would chop down in the absence of payments. Nevermind if you really would chop them down or not. Or if you've already sold the same promise on the same grove of trees to another buyer.
Can you throw in a Lordship of an EU country or name a star after me?
we should be real here: The idea of carbon credits/certificats is better than doing nothing as generelly these steps should help (better to put money where it could be worthwhile than where we know it ain't). Where it doesn't help, we have journalists and other organisations that show this (like in this example), so that the bad apples can be separated from the good apples. What really counts is the following: Having the right aim, listening to concerns and changing course where necessary. What doesn't help is unnecessary cynism (and drive-by posting). And of course we can gain the most if our politicians are using adequate incentives.
As for the certificates from Gold standard: They also have recycling projects, reforestation (yeah, i know that the discussion about this is ongoing as well!) and some programs where poor people are helped with appliances that are less environmentally damaging. Everyone can invest in whatever project one wants. We can argue about which of these programs help the most (especially since we don't really differentiate between carbon reduction, carbon sinks and carbon capture), BUT what counts is that we, as people of this planet, are trying and improving.
As for the certificates from Gold standard: They also have recycling projects, reforestation (yeah, i know that the discussion about this is ongoing as well!) and some programs where poor people are helped with appliances that are less environmentally damaging. Everyone can invest in whatever project one wants. We can argue about which of these programs help the most (especially since we don't really differentiate between carbon reduction, carbon sinks and carbon capture), BUT what counts is that we, as people of this planet, are trying and improving.
> what counts
both counts. intent and efficiency (results).
the big problem is that there is no agency that would fine/sue the shit out of these scams.
both counts. intent and efficiency (results).
the big problem is that there is no agency that would fine/sue the shit out of these scams.
[deleted]
John Oliver did a great piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
It's like the WSJ watches Oliver then spends a week or two to write an article on the exact same issue. From what I recall this is the second time now.
Of course!
There are toxic emissions laws that "prevent" companies from polluting too much. Or rather they limit the amount each company can emit. To get around that limit they just subcontracted to tons of smaller companies, each one gets it's quota of emissions.
There are toxic emissions laws that "prevent" companies from polluting too much. Or rather they limit the amount each company can emit. To get around that limit they just subcontracted to tons of smaller companies, each one gets it's quota of emissions.
This reminds me that I had seen some other article about how sometimes, projects to plant a bunch of new trees are not successful because of maintenance or upkeep costs that may not have been thought out.
But isn't making renewable energy more profitable still a good thing?
It still incentivises building wind farms quicker, and the more wind farms we have the less dependent we are on gas.
It still incentivises building wind farms quicker, and the more wind farms we have the less dependent we are on gas.
There are a lot of valid criticisms to be made about the voluntary carbon market but at least it's something that is being done right now.
At Sylvera, a carbon offset rating agency, we create very thorough analyses of all projects issuing offsets. Based on scores for carbon score, additionality and permanence we create ratings that buyers can trust to avoid being scammed. This transparency is fundamental to the functioning of this market.
At Sylvera, a carbon offset rating agency, we create very thorough analyses of all projects issuing offsets. Based on scores for carbon score, additionality and permanence we create ratings that buyers can trust to avoid being scammed. This transparency is fundamental to the functioning of this market.
If you're a small business struggling to understand carbon offsets and removal I'll be happy to help.
I run https://carbonremoved.com/ for individuals and we're beginning to work with businesses too.
Email me at "ewan@" the domain above if you'd like to take real action towards net zero.
I run https://carbonremoved.com/ for individuals and we're beginning to work with businesses too.
Email me at "ewan@" the domain above if you'd like to take real action towards net zero.
[deleted]
We have to stop considering these offsets as having any virtue.
At some point knowingly engaging in this type of behavior should be considered a crime against humanity
Two words carbon tax. You cannot fake escape it or
carbon (i.e., CO₂) isn't the problem anyway, so let them waste their money on virtue signaling. pollution is the problem. let's focus on coal plants first, where getting rid of the top 100 polluters would already palpably improve air (and water) quality that would in turn measurably reduce death and disease.
Carbon is definitely a problem.
Are there any carbon offset programs that actually do reduce atmospheric carbon?
Is there some sort of reputable certification board in this space?
John Oliver had a great piece looking at the industry (linked elsewhere here already), but didn't provide much actionable advice. (Other than to never give The Nature Conservancy any money under any circumstances.)
Is there some sort of reputable certification board in this space?
John Oliver had a great piece looking at the industry (linked elsewhere here already), but didn't provide much actionable advice. (Other than to never give The Nature Conservancy any money under any circumstances.)
Where does the money go?
Reminds me of buying indulgences from the church to absolve yourself from your sins.
File this one under "completely unsurprising".
John Oliver recently did an episode on this:
https://youtu.be/6p8zAbFKpW0
https://youtu.be/6p8zAbFKpW0
No kidding?
Wow, who could have predicted!