Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

Eric is right, you can't use the tax word.

I'm warming to the concept of a "universal carbon price". Linking the pollution we cause by our consumption to the price we pay for stuff. Skewing markets in favour of non carbon means of production, accelerating their development into the timescale we need before climate change gets sufficient momentum and becomes irreversible. That's looking like a decade it seems. Which ain't long at all.

This generally interesting piece about hydrogen from Reuters from the weekend says this. Hydrogen faces at least another decade of development before it can make a difference without carbon pricing:

Future of hydrogen fuel depends on emissions pricing

The problem with the government's 2050 carbon neutral target (now enshrined in law) is that doesn't include aviation and imports, both of which need a mechanism of inclusion such as carbon pricing.

On the later, we can't really whinge about the fact that all the efforts made in Europe to de-carbonise is for nothing when it's more than offset by increases in Asia, when we have outsourced all our manufacturing to China where they use coal and have to ship the goods from the other side of the world. Ideally, the whole world needs to adopt carbon pricing (the "universal" bit), or failing that, introduce carbon pricing at the border like you would with VAT and import tax.

The uncomfortable truth is that fossil fuels are just more productive than wind farms or solar panels. What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'

Those in power have to decide where a marginal dollar/pound/euro goes. To healthcare, to education, to police, to wind mills. When green energy is put against police or healthcare it isn't a top priority for governments or the public.

Of course the green cheerleaders will cheer all day long that green energy costs no more than FF but if that was the case greedy business would deploy it to make a buck.

michaels

I lik ethis idea of carbon vat.

The food problem could be solved by offering a reduction (subsidy) on low carbon food so the overall impact is zero. It would need a bit of thought as no doubt different beef sources have very different footprints etc.

I wonder if it would turn out that we are currently paying too much tax for some carbon sources - perhaps petrol - and too little for others (domestic gas, food obviously)

silverwhistle

At the moment the government seems to be going in the opposite direction with the proposed large increase in VAT on solar panel installations..



Maybe WTO tariffs on food will cut our consumption of meat? I don't eat much beef at the best of times but I'm trying to eat better, so last week's mince for hamburgers for the barbecue was from the local butcher. Good stuff but the price is a natural encouragement to cut back! Will any tax apply to the venison I buy at the farmer's market??

Piddles

GreatApe wrote: »

The uncomfortable truth is that fossil fuels are just more productive than wind farms or solar panels. What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'

So true. But most people are already doing it via an extra 10% or so on their energy bills for the FIT, etc. That priming of demand has meant the cost of PV has fallen dramatically. Success. Offshore wind has been effectively subsidised, but because the market has been distorted to produce the massive investments, so the costs of this heavy engineering has fallen dramatically. Success. OK, wind and solar don't yet pay their systems costs and backup costs (when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine), but it's getting there and we still need to place some more big bets on hydrogen, batteries, etc. (and yes, GreatApe, hybrid boilers )

We like to claim we're the birthplace of the industrial revolution (remember the London Olympics opening ceremony?). But what that means is that we got rich the dirty way. Climate change is truly global. So, in today's context it's probably true to say we have a moral obligation to help the global economy to jump straight to the _clean_ way by contributing to the development of competitive low carbon technologies.

In economic terms, by 2040 there will be four Asias, four Indias and four Africas.

(pause for effect)

This is a HUGE task and something that we can, are and should make a huge contribution to.

Piddles

silverwhistle wrote: »

Maybe WTO tariffs on food will cut our consumption of meat?

It does seem to be on WTO's radar: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/abstract_trade_climate_change_e.pdf

Bazingaa

Really helpful!!!

Martyn1981

Piddles wrote: »

So true. But most people are already doing it via an extra 10% or so on their energy bills for the FIT, etc.

Actually I'd disagree, certainly that accepting green technology means a lowering of living standards, that's the sort of utter gibberish that has lead to so many of us blocking his latest account.

But, even the levies you raise (pun intended) aren't a cost increase, since the real costs of FF's, both direct pollution and CO2 aren't being accounted for, so I'd argue, if anything, that RE is cheaper.

To put the cat among the pigeons, if there wasn't a problem with FF's, then we wouldn't have the green levies, so in truth they are a cost/tax on FF's (not green tech) as we would otherwise allow the normal market mechanisms to determine speed of rollout. We need the green technologies sooner, because of the costs we face over FF's.

Martyn1981

I think this fits, slight digression, but it's all relevant I promise.

This episode of TMRS looks at the long history of the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and the important science it does, from helping to 'industrialize' the production of penicillin to their work on the falling vitamin/nutritional values of crops as CO2 levels rise.

The scientists now face a tricky decision, do they (and their families) opt for a 1,000 mile move to a location with no actual building for them, or offer up their resignations ...... or get fired for failing to respond (they have two weeks).

Basically, if you can't beat scientists on the issue(s) of AGW, then get rid of them. Pretty scary stuff.

Donald Trump USDA Climate Science Quash Squanders US Science Leadership | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

It is actually very interesting, plus I think Rachel Maddow is a great presenter/reporter.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... The scientists now face a tricky decision, do they (and their families) opt for a 1,000 mile move to a location with no actual building for them, or offer up their resignations ...... or get fired for failing to respond (they have two weeks) ...

Hi

Pretty much along the lines of moving parts of the BBC / Channel 4 / MOD / various regulators etc out of London then - the choice for employees being move, move job position within the organisation, or take redundancy ... happens all of the time in industry as facilities relocate & I'm pretty sure that what we've seen in this country so far regarding the decentralisation of public sector & public funded organisations towards a more balanced distribution of jobs & investment whilst reducing costs should only be the beginning as it makes economic sense ....

... so why is the USA considered any different? ... they likely have a similar distribution issue with their federal agencies & public funded bodies as the department heads tend to crave to be close to centres of power as opposed to being close to centres of excellence ... a (very!!) quick web search related to (say) Kansas City suggests that it's a centre of medical research already, suggesting that the referenced article may be based more on political bias than first seems to be the case! .... :think:

HTH
Z

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually I'd disagree, certainly that accepting green technology means a lowering of living standards, that's the sort of utter gibberish that has lead to so many of us blocking his latest account.

But, even the levies you raise (pun intended) aren't a cost increase, since the real costs of FF's, both direct pollution and CO2 aren't being accounted for, so I'd argue, if anything, that RE is cheaper.

To put the cat among the pigeons, if there wasn't a problem with FF's, then we wouldn't have the green levies, so in truth they are a cost/tax on FF's (not green tech) as we would otherwise allow the normal market mechanisms to determine speed of rollout. We need the green technologies sooner, because of the costs we face over FF's.

I suspect there's actually very little we disagree on.

The short term problem with green levies or carbon tax/price is that it puts our economy at a competitive disadvantage. We're seeing this play out in the steel industry. British Steel seems to be going bust. So what happens? We buy Chinese steel made a less carbon efficient way using massive amounts of coal that then has to be shipped from the other side of the world. Which we can all agree, actually makes global climate change worse....even it makes our local carbon numbers look better.

I'm absolutely not saying don't do it. I'm not saying that the price of not doing it is anything short of hideous. I'm saying we have to stop this perverse incentive to make climate change worse. The universal carbon price could be the mechanism to do that. If your consumption generates carbon, you have to pay for it. Whether it's internally OR at the border.

Now ask those steel workers what they think of green levies and you'll get an ear full! That's not just perception, it's their hard reality. The government has a truly gargantuan task to convince the wider public that fighting climate change is such a good idea.

Politicians look to the next election. Business leaders to the next set of financial results. All the decision makers have been focused on the short term forever.

GreatApe's post may be forthright, but it's difficult to say he's totally wrong.