Gristmill

Checking out the scene in the nation's industrial-tomato capital

Tomorrow, I'm heading down to Immokalee, Florida, to check out conditions in our nation's tomato basket. During the growing season -- between December and May -- something like 90 percent of tomatoes consumed in the U.S. come from the area in south Florida anchored by Immokalee.

I'm going as part of a delegation of food-oriented writers and activists including authors Frances Moore Lappé and Raj Patel, Slow Food USA president Josh Viertel, and others.

For decades, working conditions in South Florida's prodigious tomato fields have ranged from ruthlessly exploitative to outright slavery. Even under the best conditions, wages are stagnant and workers live in poverty.

Yet workers in the area, represented by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, have made headlines in recent years by forcing gigantic tomato buyers like Taco Bell and Burger King to pony up an extra penny a pound -- which would cost fast-food companies a tiny sliver of profit, but represent the first substantial wage gain for pickers in decades.

There's a catch: the state's growers cooperative, the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, refuses to pass on the raise to workers. Thus workers still get 45 cents for every 32-pound basket they fill -- a wage that hasn't budged in years, eroded by steady inflation.

Immokalee is one of the hotspots of of a globalized, industrial food system. The plight of its workers -- many of them refugees from small farms in Mexico and Central America that have collapsed under the weight of that same system -- represents just another externalized cost of stocking supermarkets, fast-food outlets, and school cafeterias with "cheap" food.

For a great brief backgrounder on the Immokalee situation, check out Barry Estabrook's piece in the current Gourmet.

Look for a wrap-up of my Immokalee trip on Friday.

Tom Philpott Food

Why cap-and-trade requires that Bangladesh evict radical Islamists

David Frum is known as one of the more sensible, policy-oriented conservative writers -- he parted ways with the hyper-ideological National Review over non-lockstep comments about the woeful state of the Republican Party. So I came to his posts on cap-and-trade hoping to find some glimmer of ... something. Maybe hope that there is a way to connect with reasonable conservatives, common ground from which to begin a dialog.

First Frum wrote a post that got virtually everything about the policy wrong. Ezra Klein tried to set him straight. Frum responded with ... more misunderstandings. (Ezra tried again.) In particular I want to focus on two bits:

Yes people can escape the tax by using less electricity. But the tax is still falling on them - they are just feeling its effects in a different form, by reducing their consumption. They are still worse off, just worse off in a different way.

Uh ... there's literally no way to use less electricity without being "worse off"? There's no such thing as energy efficiency?

And then:

(Sorry - I know Ezra will say that the point is to persuade the utilities to rely on windmills instead. But that's energy fantasy, not energy policy!)

There's no such thing as renewable energy either!

I was in the midst of grappling with some reasonable way of responding to someone who doesn't believe in energy efficiency or renewable energy when I came across this comment on the post, from reader sinz54:

There is a big difference here: If an American company dumps waste into the Hudson River, they are hurting mostly AMERICANS. So that's a national problem for our fellow citizens. Whereas if an American company dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is primarily the undeveloped world that will be hurt by it. Unlike America, nearly all of Bangladesh (population 200 million) will be flooded out when the north polar ice cap melts. So we Americans are essentially restricting our economy, and impoverishing our own people, to keep the undeveloped world safe from global warming. Why are we doing them this multi-trillion-dollar favor without them paying us for it? The world cannot control global warming without U.S. cooperation. We should strike a very hard bargain for that cooperation. For example, I would insist that Bangladesh clean up its act and kick *ALL* radical Islamists out of their country before we do anything to keep their country from being flooded. We've got the political leverage. Let's use it!

I am rarely speechless, but ... I really don't know what to say about this stuff. I don't see how a group of people in this universe are going to make it back to the real world in time to create bipartisan climate policy.

David Roberts Politics

'So am I'

I promised an economy run on clean, renewable energy that will create new American jobs, new American industries, and free us from the dangerous grip of foreign oil. This budget puts us on that path, through a market-based cap on carbon pollution that will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy; through investments in wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient American cars and American trucks.

...

I realize that passing this budget wont be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. ... I know that oil and gas companies wont like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

David Roberts Politics

The NYT's false 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' charge began with false charge by Pielke

In all the hubbub about George Will's falsehood-filled columns and Andy Revkin's equation of Al Gore with George Will in the New York Times, one simple fact has been a largely overlooked:

Contrary to Revkin's assertions, Former Vice President Al Gore is not guilty of "exaggeration," let alone "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements."

Having communicated at length with Gore's staff and Revkin, I will show that not only did Gore do nothing worthy of the NYT's criticism, but in fact he acted honorably and in the highest traditions of science journalism. Contrary to the impression left by Revkin in his February 24, "News Analysis" piece (see here), Gore and his team work overtime to accurately represent the data and the science.

Gore is very careful in his use of language, more careful than the NYT -- and far more careful than the man who initiated the indefensible charge, Roger Pielke, Jr. As Dylan Otto Krider wrote at Examiner.com:

It was Pielke who provided Revkin with his Gore infraction to "balance out" his article on Will to allow Revkin to say "both sides do it" ...

As we will see in this two-parter, Revkin's case is so weak, so nonexistent, that it rests almost entirely on his interpretation -- on his indefensible overinterpretation -- of one word by Gore, a word that Revkin didn't even include in his article for reasons that will soon be obvious to all.

Part 1 focuses on how Pielke started all this by fabricating a bunch of baseless charges against Gore and smeared the good name of thousands of scientists.

Joseph Romm Uncategorized

Some perspective on tax-and-dividend and a better alternative

James Hansen has again been lecturing Congress on the virtues of tax-and-dividend. I'm no policy expert, but neither is Dr. Hansen, so I'm going to share some of my own amateur observations for the benefit of fellow Grist wonks.

Hansen did some calculations and came up with the following dividend estimates for a $115/ton (equivalent to $1/gallon) tax:

Single share: $3000/year ($250 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Family with 2 children: $9000/year ($750 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Wow! Free money! That sounds enticing. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere, so people's energy costs would, on average, increase by the same amount. But with that much money sloshing around there are bound to be huge inequities. For example, I live in northern California, where we have a mild climate and little coal power, and I don't need to drive much, so I might see my net income rise by maybe a couple thousand dollars. That would be nice, but folks back east who are paying more wouldn't like it one bit.

The tax rate and dividend should increase with time. ...

[The tax rate should increase until fossil fuel energy is not competitive with clean energy.]

Nothing's going to happen until the tax rate is high enough to overcome the price barrier. Once it does, there will be a "tipping point" at which clean energy will start to overtake fossil fuels and a variety of positive feedback mechanisms (competition, technology, economies of scale, learning by doing) will make the transition self-sustaining and gradually less dependent on price supports. So what is needed is a high price incentive right away -- not a gradually escalating incentive.

However, a high price incentive does not imply a high tax; it is possible to have an initially high and declining carbon price incentive implemented through an initially low and increasing carbon tax.

Ken Johnson Uncategorized

One last foray into the economics discussion

The guys at Environmental Economics replied to my post on economics and climate here and here. Read if you like. I would protest that "the extreme position by some environmentalists that economics is evil" has nothing to do with me or what I wrote, and that if there is some war between Environmentalism As Such and Economics As Such I want nothing to do with it, but ... feh.

I just want to make one final point, somewhat abstracted from the details of this oh-so-illuminating back and forth. In the course of decrying the pointlessness of a battle between greens and economists, Ryan Avent defends me from Tim Haab's charge that I'm an idiot:

Roberts is very smart on these issues and has a very sophisticated, and for the most part correct (in my view), outlook on carbon pricing.

First, thanks!

Now, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but note the evidence offered that I'm not an economic philistine: I respect carbon pricing. I don't want to make too much of a passing comment, but this strikes me as endemic to these debates: the notion that when it comes to environment and energy issues, "economics" means "market-based policy" means "pricing."

This seems like a weirdly constrained use of economics to me -- reflective of the narrow range of economics visible in America's public conversation -- and it's made for a weirdly constrained debate. Economists themselves aren't necessarily guilty -- see here -- but it's true of many people arriving newly to climate/energy policy debates. They discover that Economic Science says one thing and fuzzy headed advocates say something else, so of course they want to be Sensible and side with Economic Science (don't want to get patouli on you!). Thus you get a weird kind of zealotry around pricing from people who know very little about the specifics of environmental history or regulation or technology, whereby they wildly overstate the potential of pricing and proclaim confidently that Economic Science has discredited the alternatives. (*cough*carbon tax advocates*cough)

Seems to me, though, economic thinking could go both more micro and more macro than carbon pricing.

David Roberts Uncategorized

Dutch call on green guru to open up cradle-to-cradle certification

A while back I noted Fast Company's big expose on green guru William McDonough. Despite the hype and promise around McDonough's intellectual work, it hasn't done much to change the business world, for reasons having to do with what his critics characterize as ineptitude and vanity. Specifically, his cradle-to-cradle certification process has remained jealously guarded, run only through his firm, woefully behind on assessing products and responding to requests.

Now author Danielle Sacks has a short follow-up, about a Dutch attorney and several Dutch gov't organizations pleading with McDonough to open up the C2C process, if not completely open source then at least to public-private partnerships.

It's odd. The notion of keeping this stuff jealously guarded, proprietary, and for-profit seems so counter to the spirit of McDonough's work. I can't make sense of it.

David Roberts Cities

A closer look at PG&E's immensely promising solar proposal

Last Tuesday, PG&E, the second largest utility in California, announced a major new solar initiative: 250 megawatts (MW) of utility-owned, distributed generation solar, and a further 250 MW to be built by private solar developers, under fixed-price contracts, at the utility's cost of service.

This is very good news, with implications I predict will reverberate through the solar policy community for quite awhile.

First, let's take the issue of utility involvement in the distributed generation solar market. I co-wrote an article on this last fall with my colleague Kevin Fox. The upshot: utility involvement in solar brings the opportunity for new economies of scale, but can also raise concerns about the potential of monopoly power crowding out private solar developers and stifling competition. The future of solar is dependent on nurturing a competitive workforce throughout the value chain, and healthy competition to foster a robust market and bring costs down for consumers.

Our suggested cure: utility involvement in the distributed generation solar industry should be conditioned on opening access for private solar companies to provide the same value to ratepayers. On first look, PG&E's application appears to meet this standard. The program maximizes the benefits of utility involvement while minimizing the potential drawbacks.

PG&E's solar program follows on the heels of similar announcements from Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. SCE and LADWP's approaches contained efforts to limit markets and exclude participation, and as a result have been met with robust challenges.

The second policy implication concerns discussions around feed-in tariffs. While this is not a classic feed-in tariff in that it doesn't contain a must-take element (developers will submit projects to PG&E under standard contract and prices, winners will be selected based on assessed project viability and other elements), this proposal will re-introduce the spirit of competition when discussing fixed price contracts. More on this later.

Finally, we are going to see a lot of discussion on the price. PG&E projects that its cost of service will be the equivalent of $0.246/kWh, plus time-of-delivery adder, totaling $0.295 kWh. Given that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission just signed a contract for 5 MW at $0.235 in one of the least sunny places in California, and Austin Energy signed a 30 MW contract for a reported $0.165 c/kWh, I believe this is a case of PG&E underpromising so as to overdeliver. We'll see once they make their actual bid. In any event, it's sunny days for the California solar industry.

Adam Browning Uncategorized

What is Obama’s proposed price on carbon?

This is a guest post by Chaz Teplin [ChazTeplin@gmail.com], who works at the National Renewable Energy Lab developing cheaper materials for efficient photovoltaics. His opinions are his own and do not represent the views of his employer.

-----

The new Obama budget is striking because a cap and trade program is specifically called out and, critically, actual numbers are offered for the revenue raised from the program.

For years environmentalists have argued over the tradeoffs between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade, but either approach, if well-implemented, forces energy users to pay a price for carbon emissions. The actual price is crucial. A high carbon price financially motivates companies and individuals to increase energy efficiency and switch to carbon-free energy sources. With a low carbon price, the incentive for change is small.

So what is the Obama carbon price?

Obama's proposed budget anticipates about $80 billion in auction revenue in 2011 (Table S-6). Starting from this figure and some reasonable assumptions, its quite simple to get an approximate carbon price. (While we can hope for dramatically reduced emissions before the first year the plan takes affect, it seems unlikely.) The Obama plan explicitly calls for auctioning off 100 percent of the emissions permits, so we can get an approximate price of a permit by dividing the $80 billion auction revenue by current U.S. emissions.

With 2006 numbers for CO2 emissions, the Obama carbon price is $14.30 per metric ton of CO2. I don't know about you, but I don't buy my energy by the ton of CO2. Here is what $14.30 per ton would do to common energy costs*:

Effect of the Obama carbon price**

Petroleum fuels: adds 15¢/gallon
Electricity: adds 0.8¢/kWhr (compare to 7-10¢/kWhr residential rates)
Natural gas: adds 8¢/therm (compare to 85¢/therm residential rates)

In other words, energy prices would increase by about 10 percent. Its a start, but a very slow one.

For wind energy, the added cost to burn coal would be a small help because wind is already cost competitive. For solar, the increase in competing electricity prices would be irrelevant in comparison to existing federal subsidies. Considering the recent volatility in oil prices, I doubt many drivers would even notice the 15¢/gallon.

Of course, these numbers are just for 2011. But the Obama budget anticipates only small increases in auction revenue through 2020 and the stated goal is only to hit "14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020." Assuming this target is achieved, the Obama carbon price would remain below $20/ton.

I doubt that such small carbon price signals will significantly impact energy choices. Perhaps the administration is relying on the recessionary economy and a smaller GDP to reduce emissions.