The Young Turks: Common Sense On Energy

Login

The Forum

Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry [Poll]
By EveningStarNM (3 comments)

Wow did the Free Podcast fall the fuck off....
By Quo Vadimus (4 comments)

New York Legislators Introduce New Bill That Will Outlaw All Anonymous Comments Online
By cricketrwq1 (1 comments)

what's obama's game? - apply occam's razor.
By spigzone (12 comments)

The One Percent
By Scorpio (2 comments)

You Come A Long Way Baby!
By Knec Rugyu (11 comments)

Memorial Day Fun with The Firesign Theatre
By MedfordTim (17 comments)

Don't Panic!
By EveningStarNM (10 comments)

Cocaine Politics
By Scorpio (10 comments)

A problem with some liberals
By Physicist (36 comments)

More Blogs...

09/29/2006 05:44:19 AM EST

Common Sense On Energy

posted by RealityBias

Cenk and Ben, the long-coming energy revolution you discussed with John Podesta on the air minutes ago can be resolved by applying common sense.

It's difficult to believe that mere common sense and simple principles are the answer not only to our short and long term energy problems, but to their effect on common resources as well. Nevertheless, here they are:

1.Rapidly phase out subsidies to energy companies.
2.Require full compensation of citizens and taxpayers for all consumption of public lands and resources.
3.Recognize the environmental benefit of cleaner energy devices with a real market driven dollar value.
4.Encourage cleaner energy device choices and discourage less clean ones by dynamically incorporating the market determined value of it's cleanliness rating into it's price.
5.Measure device cleanliness by it's level of undesirable byproducts versus it's power output. For automobiles, do not rate based on Miles Per Gallon, rate based on how much electricity the car's engine can produce versus it's tailpipe emissions.

Why will it work?

1.All sources and types of energy will compete in a fair market.
2.Device cleanliness will be decoupled from device efficiency for the first time ever.
3.Technology in device efficiency will flourish because it's not saddled with economically unvalued cleanliness.
4.It's an economic framework so simple and elegant that it will supersede and thus replace most existing energy-environmental regulation.
5.It's technology, energy source, and consumption level neutral.
6.It influences good choices the right way: economic persuasion.

< The "We Have to Win" Myth | Middle Of The Road Politics >

Common Sense On Energy | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)

Quattro (none / 0)

4.Encourage cleaner energy device choices and discourage less clean ones by dynamically incorporating the market determined value of it's cleanliness rating into it's price.

No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still an additional sales tax.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 05:56:19 AM EST

Not exactly (none / 0)

"No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still an additional sales tax."

You seem to misunderstand. It's equally likely to be a sales credit as a sales tax. Depending on whether you make the cleaner or the dirtier device purchase. The market price determines the magitude, but whether you gain or lose from it depends on how clean device you choose.

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 06:05:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Top-Flite XL3000 (none / 0)

It's equally likely to be a sales credit as a sales tax.

There are times when seeing a stereotypical tax and spend proposal teed up makes me want to pull the graphite shafted titanium driver out of the bag and just grip it and rip it. I should hit a long iron more often. Drive for show, putt for dough.

You don't think that a tax and spend program would be immediately commandeered by the lobbyists? What happened to legislated fuel efficiency standards? Lobbyists made sure there were plenty of loopholes. Are we better off after almost killing the station wagon and replacing it with the monster truck? It would have been far better to have let the market sort out the matter on its own. Don't assume that all Americans are too stupid to think for themselves and therefore you must manipulate the market to force them to make good choices. Give freedom a chance.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 06:41:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]

You aren't getting it. (none / 0)

The above plan is not market manipulation. Presently, the economic framework assigns a zero dollar value to pulluting when you use energy. But not polluting does have real value. And that value should be market determined, and factored into the device cost, either making it more expensive if dirty, or less expensive if relatively clean.

There's not tax and spend involved.

Your response makes so little sense of any kind that I'm beginning to wonder, no offense intended, if you are sentient.

What would happen to fuel efficiency standards? Please read the proposal, because it answers this question. Current fuel efficiency standards are the wrong measure, and would be obsolete.

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 06:49:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

T & S (none / 0)

There's not tax and spend involved.

It's equally likely to be a sales credit as a sales tax. Depending on whether you make the cleaner or the dirtier device purchase.

A sales tax is a tax and a sales credit is an expenditure. That's a tax and spend policy.

Your response makes so little sense of any kind that I'm beginning to wonder, no offense intended, if you are sentient.

I'm sentient enough to know that you did intend offense.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 07:06:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]

How this works (none / 0)

A sales tax is a tax and a sales credit is an expenditure. That's a tax and spend policy.

No, that's not the proposal, you're not reading it. The government does not take in or give out any money. A free market trades what is effectively a 'currency' representing the pollution per energy output rating of a device. With purchase of an energy converting device like a car or even a power plant, you either receive or must deliver credits (which equal cash at market value) proportional to the device rating.

Your response makes so little sense of any kind that I'm beginning to wonder, no offense intended, if you are sentient.

"I'm sentient enough to know that you did intend offense."

I intended no personal offense, only offense against your reply devoid of meaningful content and understanding of the proposal you were responding to.

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 07:14:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Oh (none / 0)

The government does not take in or give out any money.

You should have told me from the start that this is a plan that can only be implemented in the utopia in your imagination.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 07:27:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Oh yes (none / 0)

Actually, it would be much simpler to implement than the current awful patchwork of regulations that don't even work.

What about my plan is impracticle?

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 07:29:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Better explanation (none / 0)

Twba, we all know you are the largest free market advocate on this board. The problem with a completely free market in this case is it does not account for certain "ecological goods and services". These are things such as releasing mercury into the water and CO2 or SOxx and NOxx into the atmosphere. These are all net negatives, but have no tangible cost to the person who released them (other than EPA regulations). This biases the economic balance towards poluters vs. non poluters as these costs are not accounted for. Her plan is to set up a system which accounts for these costs in the economics by some sort of market mechanism. The main problem with these types of solutions comes in defining the market mechanism to account for these "costs".

by alphasigmookie on 09/29/2006 04:49:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0)

Right.

Plus, right now, higher energy efficeincy (useful work per unit of fuel) technologies are saddled with the un-recognized value of increased pollution efficeincy (pollution per unit of useful work).

Once you decouple those, energy efficeint technologies will flourish because consumers will be free to purchase more energy efficient devices solely for the purpose of saving money in the long run on fuel, yet not be forced to buy the 'less polluting' component that probably comes along with the same device without compensation.

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 05:54:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No tangible cost? (none / 0)

These are all net negatives, but have no tangible cost to the person who released them (other than EPA regulations).

You just left yourself a huge loophole at the end of the sentence. No cost to pollute? Other than EPA fines. There is also the threat of civil lawsuits by those damaged by the pollution. So there is a rather large incentive now to minimize pollution. Why are cleaner technologies being adopted? Why are people choosing more efficient light bulbs, refrigerators and automobiles? The market is working well with current regulations. That's not to say that the regulations can not be improved, but switching to another regulatory scheme is not going to eliminate the effect of lobbyists buying off whoever defines pollution and prescribes taxes on it.

by Twba on 09/30/2006 01:53:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Rights, no tangible cost. (none / 0)

No cost to pollute? Other than EPA fines. There is also the threat of civil lawsuits by those damaged by the pollution. So there is a rather large incentive now to minimize pollution.

Joe Schmoe walks into an automobile dealership. Two vehicles catch his eye. One has an engine that produces one unit of pollution per unit of engine output. The other produces two units of pollution, doing the same amout of mechanical work. Otherwise, the cars are identical, except the price. The one that produces half the pollution cost $500 more. Joe chooses to save the $500, because like most people, he decides based on factors that are tangible to him, like the experience of driving the car, and what it will cost him. He does not fear a civil lawsuit for buying the more polluting car. He has no incentive to buy the less polluting car, unless he's a tree hugger do-gooder. Twba, do you advocate regulations demanding device producers build their devices in a certain way? Or, would you prefer incenting consumers to choose better products?

The exact same principle applies when Joe goes to buy a refridgerator. And anythine else.

Why are cleaner technologies being adopted? Why are people choosing more efficient light bulbs, refrigerators and automobiles?

People don't buy cleaner (pollution per useful work) intentionally. They buy more energy efficient (useful work per unit of fuel) intentionally (for a fair price). They do that becauese they calculate it will save them money. They buy Compact Flourescent bulbs because they use 25% of the energy, which they intend to earn back in electricity cost savings.

However, more energy efficient technologies typically are also cleaner. But unlike being energy efficient, being pollution efficient doesn't pay for itself in any way tangible to the consumer. That's why the value of pollution efficiency must be assigned a dollar value by the free market, as in my plan.

The market is working well with current regulations. That's not to say that the regulations can not be improved, but switching to another regulatory scheme is not going to eliminate the effect of lobbyists buying off whoever defines pollution and prescribes taxes on it.

My plan would hugely reduce the amount of regulation required. Taxes are not involved, as stated previously. Lobbyists buying off who defines pollution? Good point. Obvious the assessment of device ratings, and defining pollution are key. Those will need to be isolated from pollitics as much as possible. However, opportunities for such mischief would be much reduced.

by RealityBias on 09/30/2006 10:17:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]

supprised (none / 0)

I'm suprised you are so against a market approach to regulation. It makes infinitely more sense to me than the volumes of specific EPA regulations and red tape that saddle companies currently. If you want to polute you simply go to the market and buy credits that allow you to polute. If you want to be efficient you get an extra bonus by being able to sell credits into the market.

"but switching to another regulatory scheme is not going to eliminate the effect of lobbyists buying off whoever defines pollution and prescribes taxes on it."

Yes washington is corupt...So? It's always been corupt. I agree the system in general needs reform, but this a completely separate issue.

by alphasigmookie on 09/30/2006 02:26:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Surprise, AZ (none / 0)

I'm not against regulation of harmful pollution. I've just seen the tax credit idea in practice.

by Twba on 09/30/2006 03:33:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No surprise (none / 0)

Yeah, that sounds pretty stupid. And whoa, it was a Repuglican program!

From
http://www.stateline.org/li ve/ViewPage.action?siteNode Id=136&languageId=1& ;contentId=14196

Pitched both as a clean air program and a step toward weaning the country off foreign oil, Arizona offered a lump-sum rebate of up to 40 percent off the final price of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks converted to use alternate fuels, while exempting buyers from sales taxes, vehicle license taxes and emissions tests.

Worse, beneficiaries of the program were not required to use alternative fuel in their bi-fuel vehicles, and many disconnected the systems right after purchase.

House Speaker Jeff Groscost, a conservative Republican from Mesa, was the architect of the program and all the less-popular alternative fuel programs that preceded it since 1993. He earned tens of thousands of dollars in 1998 consulting out of state for natural gas companies.

Last April, he engineered passage of the program on the last day of a protracted legislative session by amending the language, written with direct input from alternative fuel entrepreneurs, onto a bill that had already gone through committee hearings.

The massive omnibus bill also contained other clean air provisions favored by Democrats and moderate Republicans, earning it votes that might not otherwise had materialized.

So... Repuglicans ram through a terrible scheme which profits them and their friends. I wish I could be surprised.

Tax credits are not the answer.

The answer is a sane economic framwork which reduces the price of cleaner technologies while making dirtier ones more expensive through market forces, all while eliminating much of the massive patchwork of energy related environmental legislation, which is, as your example proves, fertile ground for fraud.

by RealityBias on 09/30/2006 04:16:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

ok? (none / 0)

That plan is nothing like what we are talking about. Incentivising specific technologies isn't the best way to go about things. That is where lobyists use their power and you end up with billions spent on fuel cells and corn ethanol. You need a system that accounts for the unaccounted costs (co2 emmisions) and lets the market decide what the best solution is.

by alphasigmookie on 09/30/2006 04:41:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: More on how this framework might look (none / 0)

That plan is nothing like what we are talking about. Incentivising specific technologies isn't the best way to go about things. That is where lobyists use their power and you end up with billions spent on fuel cells and corn ethanol.
There's nothing wrong with congress allocating some of the nation's treasure to scientific research studying technologies such as fuel cells and converting waste or underutilized biomass into liquid fuel. But you're right, it's probably even better if they filter the research funds through established research institutions like Universities, rather that target sectors of the energy industry.
You need a system that accounts for the unaccounted costs (co2 emmisions) and lets the market decide what the best solution is.
I think it's better that a device's entire Pollution Efficiency (how much it pollutes per power output) be reduced to a single factor. What emisisons are 'pollutants' should not be controversial. It will encompass every conceivable pollutant. Then, an impartial agency will measure each device for those pollutants per power output, and publish the ratings.
Let's look at 3 cars. The most pollution efficient, the least, and one that's average. Let's say that initially, the best/worst device ratio is 1:1. This would be the only thing controlled by legislature. Tuning it enables meeting the desires level of pollution.
So, purcahser of least pollution efficient car delivers 1, let's call it 'Eco', when buying the car. If they have one, fine, otherwise, the market price of once can just be added to the car.
The purchaser of the average car is right in the middle, so gets and receives no Ecos.
The purchaser of the car which pollutes the least per engine power output (NOT "miles per gallon', which is an inapropriate measurement) receives one Eco, or the market value thereof.
The same system scales to everything from lawnmowers to nuclear power plants.

by RealityBias on 09/30/2006 05:44:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Nobody disagrees? (none / 0)

Is there some fault with this plan? Come on, it can't be perfect.

by RealityBias on 09/29/2006 07:00:10 AM EST

QQ (none / 0)

好~!

by zitiancn on 12/07/2006 08:11:08 PM EST

Common Sense On Energy | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)