Articles by David Roberts

Browner included on Obama economic team discussions

Last week John Broder wrote in The New York Times about contrasting views on climate policy among two top Obama administration officials: economic team leader Larry Summers, who favors "safety valves," slow phase-ins, and caution, and climate/energy czar empress Carol Browner, who favors strict carbon restrictions, quickly implemented.

(Broder's article was irksome, by the way. At no point did he see fit to mention that the reason Browner and "environmentalists" favor stiffer carbon restrictions is not that they don't care about costs but that they disagree about costs. The casual reader is left with the impression that economists and other Very Serious people have to do a "reality check" for la-la-land greens who don't care about money or working people. Have we learned nothing from our experience with previous environmental regs? Why is historically ungrounded pessimism the same as "realism"? Grr. Wait, where was I?)

Anyway, one wouldn't want to make too much of this, but it seems like a good sign that earlier today when Obama met with his economic team, Browner was in the room.

Perhaps this is a signal that environmental policy gets a seat at the big kid's table and doesn't get filed under do-gooderism. Maybe we can't persuade the economists to take efficiency or innovation seriously, but at least someone representing an optimistic assessment of costs will be around to temper all the pessimism. Let's hope Summers takes her seriously despite her gender.

Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax

In last weekend's New York Times, conservatives Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) and Arthur Laffer had an op-ed claiming that a revenue-neutral "tax shift" would make conservatives "the new administration's best allies on climate change."

Color me skeptical. Laffer, of course, is a conservative legend, an economist whose curve has given a great many mendacious right-wing legislators intellectual cover in the war on taxes. Inglis is best known for telling Mitt Romney that Mormons aren't Christians.

It's notable when prominent conservatives don't try to deny or downplay climate change. But that's a mighty low bar to clear these days.

There is a crucial bit of weasel wording here: "If the bill's authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root."

It matters a great deal whether a carbon tax reduces "income taxes or payroll taxes." Energy taxes are generally regressive unless offset. Reducing payroll taxes would provide some progressivity; reducing income taxes would provide additional regressivity. (Many workers pay no income tax at all.) You can bet conservatives would love that. "The good news is that both Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut," they say. Everything's in that "or."

As with many carbon tax fans these days, Inglis wildly overstates the effects of a modest price on carbon:

Natural gas utility to spend $6.6 million on conservation and efficiency efforts

This is cool news:

December 23, 2008 -- The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) today approved the Virginia Natural Gas (VNG) proposed conservation and ratemaking efficiency plan.

The plan calls for new energy conservation programs, coupled with a revenue adjustment mechanism, designed to assist customers in managing their energy costs.

As part of the plan, VNG will provide $6.6 million over three years in new conservation initiatives. VNG projects that customers who participate in these new programs, set to begin rolling out in early 2009, can significantly reduce their monthly natural gas usage.

This is via NRDC, who shares this very cool map of decoupling programs across the nation:

Michigan governor on verge of important announcement on coal and clean energy?

For several years Michigan has been pursuing a dual-track energy strategy: more coal plants and more clean energy. But as forecasts show demand slacking, energy imports draining the budget, and power plant costs rising, the calculus may be shifting.

Keith Schneider reports that Gov. Jennifer Granholm is on the verge of a big announcement:

Senior Granholm administration officials declined to be specific about what they said would be a "major statement," but indicated the governor might support a moratorium on approving new coal plants while the state formulates CO2 regulations--something coal opponents around the state have pushed for with lawsuits, petitions to the governor, and a steady barrage of press and grassroots events for more than a year. Or, some officials said, the governor might announce an outright ban on new coal plants.

Putting Rust Belt states in the vanguard of the clean energy shift is a powerful thing, symbolically, politically, and economically. Let's hope Granholm goes big.