The Ridiculousness of Cap-and-Trade as a “Carbon Tax” May 6, 2009

 

I’m hearing a lot of talk from Republicans critical of the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation who are claiming that the cap-and-trade scheme contained in the bill is a “tax” on energy.  The whole idea of cap-and-trade arises from the notion that a free market is the best way to determine the prices for things of value. 

 

Yet, what this issue comes down to is that those who oppose a cap-and-trade system view carbon emissions (and the energy making process in general) as free.  So, when they see that the government is going to put a price on what was otherwise (and in their minds) completely free, they shout and scream and try to commit political homicide by calling it a tax. 

 

But, the shrill “carbon tax” critics are wrong about a critical assumption in their argument.  Carbon emissions are not free.  They are like commodities in the sense that they have value, and their value derives directly from the fact that their production has costs.  Those emissions are contributing to our increasingly warming planet, which affects health, coastlines, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and communities devastated by fierce weather. 

 

The traditional process of electricity generation emits a great deal of carbon.  The energy companies cannot expect to use a valuable commodity for free.  They don’t expect that they won’t have to pay for the coal they use to produce the electricity.  Why should they expect to not have to pay for the right to emit the carbon that is essential to the traditional production of electricity? 

 

When it comes down to it cap-and-trade is not a tax.  It is merely a method of allowing the free market to put a price on something that has value to the business community.

Voracious Global Warming Denier Bachmann Named to House Republican Panel April 29, 2009

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), whose name will be immediately familiar to anyone who has been tuned into the recent spate of increasingly paranoid and outrageous rantings of the Republican Party, has been named by House Republicans to a panel designed to deal with the nation’s energy policies.  Rep. Bachmann has a few bills in the energy field, as is described in her website statement on the appointment to the Republican energy group. 

 

One reason this is important to note is that it demonstrates the House Republicans’ desire to maintain the “drill baby drill” mantra, although perhaps a bit less vocally.  Three of the four energy bills Bachmann describes in her web announcement would basically fast-track drilling.  One would even take away the government’s power, either judicially or administratively, to review any leases once they were reviewed by the President or a designee.  Another bill would require the government to waive regulations with respect to existing leases if the price of oil exceeds $100 per barrel.  This kind of focus on drilling and fossil fuels is simply a continuation of the current, non-renewable, globally dangerous energy policy that the United States has had for years. 

 

Another reason this is important is because it highlights the House Republicans’ desire to impede efforts to find a solution to global warming.  If the House Republicans were serious about helping to combat global warming, they would not appoint a member of Congress to a working group to help craft energy policies who said this:  “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax.  It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” 

 

I think it will be important to remember this when, as the debate over our federal response to global warming increases, we see more and more Republicans and conservatives raise red herrings and try to delay our efforts to green our economy.  

Renewable Requirement in Global Warming Bill Will Not Dramatically Increase Energy Costs April 29, 2009

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report developed in response to a request by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) evaluating the effect that the 25% renewable requirement, contained in the global warming bill now being considered by Congress, will have on electricity prices.  The report found that there will be about a 2.9% increase in the cost of electricity around 2025, dropping down to about 1% by 2030 and after. 

 

Two of the big objections to the bill (and in fact objections to taking any far-reaching actions to combat global warming now) are that the current economic situation cannot afford such measures and, relatedly, that it will hurt business interests.  (In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA) said that the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill, which would cap the level of greenhouse gas emissions that polluters can produce and create a market-based system trading scheme for the right to emit greenhouse pollutants, were “an economic declaration of war on the Midwest.”) The EIA report directly undermines those arguments, albeit in the particular context of mandating renewables.  The reality is that we have to act now.  Arguments such as these should be seen for what they are—scare tactics aimed at delaying progress in the effort to combat global warming.  

Barton Misconstrues Carbon Dioxide Levels April 24, 2009

Yesterday I posted about Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the current ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and his introduction to plate tectonics.  During the Committee’s hearings on a global warming bill, Rep. Barton expressed disbelief when Energy Secretary Steven Chu informed him that there are continental plates on which landmasses travel around the globe. 

 

I checked the congressman’s website, particularly about his positions on global warming and the environment, and learned that Barton has posted some facts taken from the journal Science and other respected sources to downplay the harmful effects of carbon dioxide in global warming.  Rep. Barton’s argument seems to be that carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the total composition of the atmosphere, so global warming must not really be a problem.  Thus, again it seems that Barton is attempting to use science without understanding it to prevent progress on combating global warming. 

 

On his website, Barton says:

 

Relevant Facts to Put the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Into Perspective:

 

1) The air we breathe is composed almost entirely (99.88%) of Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), and Argon (Ar).  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other variable gases including water vapor (H2O and clouds), Ozone (O3), and other trace gases make up the remainder. 

 

…

 

3) As a percentage of the total atmosphere, carbon dioxide represents only 0.0386% [ii]. The entire increase in CO2 since before the industrial revolution represents only .0091% of the total atmosphere.  Not very much, is it?  Laid out on a 100 yard football field, this would equal a distance of less than 3/8 of an inch.  It is also important to remember that CO2 is not a pollutant; it is an indispensable part of life.  Your body creates and emits CO2 every time you take a breath.   

 

Rep. Barton is focusing on the small percentage and is arguing essentially that because the number is small what that number represents can’t be important.  By focusing on the number itself, Barton is ignoring the number’s context.  The atmosphere is a complex system that has developed in its current composition.  By altering the amount of one of the components, the delicate system can be thrown out of whack, which is exactly what is happening due to the increase in man-made carbon dioxide levels. 

 

Let’s look at some other areas where the actual number, in and of itself is small, but where adjusting that number can have dramatic effects.  First, think of carbon monoxide.  It naturally occurs in the atmosphere, too, albeit in only trace amounts.  Yet, when carbon monoxide builds up in a home or other confined space, it can actually kill people.  What starts out small and inconsequential becomes very serious when the amounts in the system are changed. 

 

Another example is iron.  The human body consists of about one-tenth of an ounce of iron.  That’s an exceedingly small amount—making up just 0.004 percent of our weight.  Yet, that iron is essential to life.  It’s how our bodies transport oxygen to our cells.  Without it, we wouldn’t be alive.  So, again, what starts out as small and inconsequential becomes very serious when we understand the system and how that system functions. 

 

By posting about the small amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Rep. Barton is attempting to obfuscate the issue of global warming.  I certainly hope people will see through it.  

Oil in Alaska = No Human-Influenced Global Warming? April 23, 2009

 

One member of Congress seems to think so. 

 

During this week’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on a bill to combat global warming, introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), some Republicans have voiced a refrain often heard from many of the global warming deniers—that the Earth is merely experiencing a period of warming from natural, rather than man-made, causes.  Yesterday, the Committee heard testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, among others. 

 

During the questioning period, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the top Republican and former chairman of the Committee, asked Secretary Chu to answer in the remaining 6 seconds that Barton had available for questioning where oil comes from and how the oil got to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean.  Secretary Chu responded that oil is a result of millions of years of geology and shifting plates.  Rep. Barton suggested that it is obvious that at one time “it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole” because obviously a large pipeline didn’t bring the oil from Texas to Alaska.  After Secretary Chu explained that continental plates have been drifting around during the ages, Rep. Barton asked incredulously, “So it just drifted up there?” 

[Note that Rep. Barton seems to be so proud of this question that he posted it to his YouTube page, as shown above.  Rep. Barton clearly has the wrong impression of who is "puzzled" here.]

 

Rep. Barton was relying as a foundation for his question on the argument that our current warming period is merely a natural occurrence, so we don’t really need to be worried about global warming.  After all, if it was once warm enough in Alaska and near the Arctic Ocean to produce oil, then the world has experienced dramatic fluctuations in temperature in the past, right?  That’s not entirely shocking.  What is absolutely shocking is that someone who seems to know the natural genesis of oil apparently has no knowledge at all of plate tectonics. 

 

While the underlying premise is true—that the Earth experiences periods of natural climatic variation—that doesn’t mean that humans are not also contributing to the current warming of the Earth.  So, even if Alaska had always been right where it is now, that by no means ensures that humans have not contributed to our current warming period. 

 

Barton’s apparent ignorance of plate tectonics leaves me with one question.  How does he explain earthquakes?  

House Committee Begins Hearings on Global Warming Legislation April 22, 2009

On April 21, 2009, the House Committe on Energy and Commerce conducted the first of four days of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (or ACESA), legislation to combat global warming.  The first day is limited to opening statements, but the following three days will be testimony.  And there are a number of high profile witnesses, including former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  The entire schedule is listed here.  A video of the first day of the hearings can be found here.   This should certainly be a very interesting set of hearings to watch.

EPA Finds that Carbon Dioxide Endangers Public Health April 17, 2009

The EPA has finally issued its findings (albeit proposed at this point) that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.  This is the first step on the road to regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however the EPA says that no regulations are being proposed at this time. 

 

This is a long time coming.  It’s especially nice to see science’s prominent role returned to EPA’s decision-making process.  The press release says it all:

 

“EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.”

 

While this is certainly only a first step—and I expect some dramatic fights when draft regulations are proposed—it is a very good and important first step.  

Congressional Misunderstanding of Global Warming March 28, 2009

During a recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, some congressmen displayed a frightening lack of understanding of the basics of global warming and its effects. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who was the former chairman of the full committee, had this to say:

 

“I believe that earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons. And I think man-kind has been adopting, or adapting, to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay. … Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that difficult.”

 

This statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding, or to give Rep. Barton the benefit of the doubt, a purposefully disingenuous mischaracterization, of the effects of global warming. And, his comment is similar to a popular argument by global warming deniers, which conflates local and global effects of global warming. The underlying assumption of this kind of argument is that the negative effects from global warming are limited to a local level, rather than a systemic, global level. The natural conclusion from this argument is that as it gets hotter, people can turn up the dials on their air conditioners. (This is essentially the reason why many global warming deniers happily jeer when unseasonably cold weather occurs.)

 

But, that’s an oversimplification. The problem with global warming is not that it will merely cause the air to get hotter, resulting in some minor discomfort and increased annoyance. When the planet warms—and we’re only talking about a few degrees over long periods of time—it affects the global climate patterns, which results in dramatic shifts in weather systems. Also, that increased surface temperature negatively affects ecosystems and animal species. And we don’t know what that will mean for humans.

 

Rep. Barton also said something that seems to support taking immediate actions to counter global warming. He said, “Nature doesn’t seem to adjust to people as much as people adjust to nature.” If nature doesn’t adjust well to changes that people make (and here it seems that Rep. Barton is unconsciously implying that humans are in fact contributing to global warming), but people can adjust, then that’s all the more reason to take actions to stem the negative effects of global warming.

Earth Hour 2009 March 28, 2009

Don’t forget to turn out your lights tonight at 8:30 P.M. wherever you live to participate in Earth Hour 2009.  And while you’re making a statement about the importance of conserving energy and protecting against global warming, grab your telescope or binoculars and do a little sky gazing.

And if you want to contribute to the Earth Hour event, you can upload photos and videos to share with others.  Visit earthhour.org to find out how.