Uncategorized

International mercury pact shows that India and China will follow our lead

The news that the Obama administration is on board with an international pact to significantly decrease mercury use is fantastic for those of us committed to switching from dirty coal power to clean, renewable energy sources.

This is a bold step for the U.S. -- one that is a long-time coming for coal-fired power plants. Coal plants are one of the largest sources of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.

Mercury pollution causes brain damage and other developmental problems in unborn children and infants, and it has been linked to a greater risk of coronary heart disease in men. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 8 percent of women had mercury blood levels exceeding the level deemed safe for unborn children by the Environmental Protection Agency. Our mercury regulations should be strict to protect public health and the environment.

Yet it was this quote from the Washington Post article on the international mercury treaty that stuck out to my colleagues and me: "Once the administration said it was reversing the course set by President George W. Bush, China, India and other nations also agreed to endorse the goal of a mandatory treaty."

For too long we've heard the regulation nay-sayers use the excuse that whatever restrictions and regulations we introduce will only hurt the U.S. economically because China and India will not do the same. This mercury treaty shows the reality: If the U.S. acts first, then China and India will follow.

This bodes well for carbon legislation. The U.S. must act first on carbon regulation. China and India will follow our lead.

Cap-and-trade rebates to taxpayers favor efficiency over equity

UPDATE: There are two important updates at the bottom of this post.

Another striking feature of the way cap-and-trade is treated in Obama's budget: rebates to taxpayers are administered through a payroll tax deduction. This is interesting stuff indeed.

The question of how to rebate auction revenue back to people (to offset the increased costs of energy under a cap) reveals a tension between equity and efficiency.

If the goal is equity, the payroll tax rebate is probably not the way to go. On one hand, it's far more progressive than an income tax rebate (about a third of U.S. workers pay no federal income tax at all). On the other hand, there's reason to believe it's less equitable than a simply writing an equal check to every citizen. That's what a recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recommends. (Technically it recommends refundable tax credits, more or less the same thing).

CBPP says flat rebates would be more equitable than income or payroll tax cuts -- the latter would less regressive, but regressive nonetheless:

CBO found that if all the revenue from auctioning emissions allowances were used to reduce payroll tax rates, households in the bottom 60 percent of the distribution would get a smaller benefit from the tax cut, on average, than they would lose from higher energy prices. Those in the next 20 percent would come out even and the top 20 percent of the population would get a tax cut that exceeded their increase in energy costs. [my emphasis]

In addition, "seniors and others without earnings would receive no rebate" -- no pay, no payroll tax.

To solve the first problem, you could put a cap on payroll tax rebates, so higher income workers don't get a windfall. To solve the second problem, you could make seniors, the disabled, and other folks with no earnings eligible for a special tax credit. But if you're going that route, why not just use the same tax credit for everyone?

If your goal is efficiency, however, the payroll tax rebate is better. Efficiency here means emission reductions with the least macroeconomic impact. A cap-and-trade refunded through payroll taxes effectively raises one tax (an fossil energy tax) and lowers another. The idea is to get less of what you're taxing (fossil energy) and more of what you're taxing less (work). That's why Obama's people are calling it the "Making Work Pay" measure.

Still, the CBPP says it's not worth it:

The efficiency gains are largest -- although still quite small -- when the rebate comes exclusively in the form of a payroll tax cut. But that approach leaves millions of low-income and senior households out in the cold.

Guess efficiency beat equity in the Obama budget team. That would be Summers and Orszag at work. Yay economists!

UPDATES: Two important notes to add:

First, there is a cap on the payroll tax deduction: the tax credit offsets payroll taxes "up to the first $6,450 of earnings." So that does reduce the regressivity somewhat. Thanks to Kate for pointing this out.

Second, it might not be clear in the post that the tax credit's effect is to offset payroll taxes, but the credit itself is administered via the income tax. Those who pay payroll tax but no income tax will just receive an income tax credit -- a check. The payroll tax is the target but the income tax is the instrument. Why this is, I'll leave for people who know way more about the tax code than me.

British recycling site to feature celeb cast-offs

This just in: MySkip.com, which as near as I can tell is the British version of Freecycle (TM!), is hosting a 24-hour Celeb Throwaway next week to show users just how sexy recycling can be. While the names of the participants have been revealed, their items have not. What will Boy George donate? Sheryl Crow? Cuba Gooding Jr.? The cast of Mamma Mia? One's imagination hardly dares wander.

Advances in climate science took a nosedive in NASA satellite crash

By now you’ve probably heard about NASA’s carbon-measuring satellite, the one that went kerplunk into the ocean near Antarctica in a disastrous launch attempt Tuesday morning. I was feeling bummed that my “gee, this is going to be really cool and useful” pre-launch story is now very much irrelevant. Then I realized NASA’s team of […]

Solar hot water heating's day in the sun

The California Center for Sustainable Energy is implementing a pilot solar water-heating incentive program in San Diego. The success of the pilot will go a long way in determining how the program gets rolled out to the rest of California -- which is important because, as you can see from this great study by CalSEIA, the value of solar hot water is quite high. That's why it was nice to see a weatherman from a local news station get in on the act, climb up a roof, and tell people just what they should be doing with a sunny day. (Video here.)

[Note to Al Roker: I also heard the San Diego TV guy say there's no way you could do as good of a job. He dared you to try to promote solar nationally as well as he did locally. He also called you a punk.]

Also of note: a local solar installer has announced a $0-down financing program, with payments set at avoided energy cost (estimated at a 7-year payback). That's the first time I've heard of a program like that for solar water heating, and is the kind of innovation that will be necessary for the technology to find its place in ... wait for it ... the sun.

Green Energy Act introduced to Ontario's provincial parliament; feed-in tariffs key mechanism

The following is a guest essay by author, advocate, and renewable energy industry analyst Paul Gipe. His latest book, Wind Energy Basics, will be published by Chelsea Green in early 2009.

-----

On February 23, Ontario's powerful Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman introduced into provincial parliament in Toronto Bill 150, to be known as the Green Energy Act.

The massive and far reaching bill -- the summary alone is eleven pages -- tackles renewable energy, energy efficiency, and building codes as well as streamlines project permitting.

Among its many provisions is the Ministers ability to use feed-in tariffs as a key implementation mechanism. Unlike the German Renewable Energy Sources Act, Bill 150 does not include specific feed-in tariffs. The tariffs will be determined in a separate administrative process.

Minister Smitherman is not only the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure but also Deputy Premier. As such, Smitherman is second only to Ontario's premier Dalton McGuinty in the cabinet.

In recent public presentations, both Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty have emphasized that they intend for the Green Energy Act to push Ontario to the forefront of renewable energy development in North America. Most ambitiously, they have said that the Green Energy Act will create 50,000 new jobs in the province within three years.

Ontario has been hard hit by the collapse of the auto industry. Before the financial crises, there were more people employed in the auto industry in Ontario than in the entire state of Michigan. Since the middle of 2008, Ontario has been shedding tens of thousands of auto industry jobs.

The government hopes to turn some of the now idle factories to manufacturing green products such as wind turbines and solar panels.

In Ontario's Westminister form of parliamentary rule, a majority government can almost guarantee passage of a bill introduced with the support of the cabinet. Amendments may be offered and debated but passage of the bill is almost certain.

In the red

Before the 2007 IPCC report was released, this infographic was taken out (click for larger version):

Seems the scientists were uncomfortable with it, deeming it too subjective, or too scary, or something. Basically the red shows the growth of various risks between 2001 and 2007. Surprise: risks have grown!

Andy Revkin has more.

Dear public advocates for addressing climate change,

You're doing it wrong.

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1 degrees C

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, here and below).

The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, "Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters" (see here), by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their model's 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:

The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.

Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.

 

Projected decadal mean concentrations of CO2. Red solid lines are median, 5% and 95% percentiles for present study: dashed blue line the same from their 2003 projection.

Why the change? The Program's website explains:

Does the New York Times also employ several know/do-nothing fact checkers?

[Please email the NYT at [email protected] to demand a correction for the egregious mistakes in Tierney's column and/or email its public editor at [email protected] to explain you are "concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity."]

The backlash from George Will's disinformation rightly grows each day that the Washington Post stands behind his lies (see here). Media Matters has samples of widespread outrage in the country here, and a new report [PDF] from CAPAF challenges the WP to issue a correction.

Now it is time for outrage over John Tierney, who not only makes stuff up just like Will, but is actually on the New York Times staff as their 'science' columnist. When we last saw Tierney, he was spreading lies and disinformation about science adviser nominee John Holdren (see here).

Today, the NYT not only let him print more egregiously made up stuff to smear Holdren (and Energy Secretary Steven Chu). But they actually published an article "Politics in the Guise of Pure Science" (see here) under the heading "FINDINGS" about Chu, Holdren, climate science, and climate solutions with precisely one source -- Roger Pielke, Jr. That would be like publishing an article critical of Obama's handling of the financial crisis and only citing Bernie Madoff.

Amazingly Pielke is quoted at great length as an "honest broker" on climate issues [pause for laughter, hope the orchestra starts to drown him out before he can finish talking], even though his policies are indistinguishable from that of leading global warming deniers (see here).

I am not going to debunk everything Tierney wrote -- like Will, his piece that brings to mind Mary McCarthy's famous quip about Lillian Hellman:

Every word she writes is a lie -- including 'and' and 'the.'

But let me focus on the three most egregious things he writes -- at least the first of which the New York Times should retract and correct: