"U.S. to announce 'Beyond Kyoto' climate pact"
The debate over command and control versus incentives is about to heat up. From Reuters (U.S. to announce 'Beyond Kyoto' climate pact):
The United States, the world's top polluter, is set to unveil a five-nation pact to combat global warming by developing energy technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions, officials said on Wednesday.
[...]
Details of the pact were unclear but it appears to echo recent comments by President Bush who advocates the use of technology to curb growth in greenhouse gas emissions rather than setting Kyoto-style caps on emissions.
[...]
The WWF urged Washington and Canberra to agree Kyoto-style caps on emissions, saying that any regional energy technology deal was only a partial solution. And it said China and India had promised to take part in talks on widening Kyoto.
I especially like this quote:
"A deal on climate change that doesn't limit pollution is the same as a peace plan that allows guns to be fired," said Jennifer Morgan, head of the WWF's climate change program.
I don't agree, but points for creativity.
i wonder if it would be a good bet to follow my natural cynicism, and say that one of the technologies to be pushed will be hydrogen fuel cell cars?
please read this
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-07-25-voa8.cfm
and note the optimistic assumption that you can "incentivize" technology that has been stuck in prototype state for the last 30 years.
Posted by: odograph | July 27, 2005 at 02:21 PM
This may be the wrong time to ask, but doesn't Kyoto include trading mechanisms? So, it's not really a "command and control" strategy at all. Moreover, doesn't this administration's tendency to target incentives on particular technologies make that a command and control strategy, or at least more of one than one based in tradeable permits? I feel like this whole debate is completely upside down from what it ought to be. I mean, this is all half-knowledge on my part, so school me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: allen claxton | July 27, 2005 at 02:54 PM
Allen,
Great points. I didn't mean to imply that Kyoto was only command and control and 'Beyond Kyoto' was only economic incentives. I just meant to say that Kyoto seems to target quantities (of pollution) while 'Beyond Kyoto' seems to target prices (of what we're not quite sure yet). The price versus quantity debate is related to the command and control versus incentives debate, but not perfectly correlated.
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 27, 2005 at 03:03 PM
you may be optimistic to think it will target prices ... it may be a joint research program. the cynic in me (again) seeing it as a way to defer action.
Posted by: odograph | July 27, 2005 at 06:54 PM
Kyoto is a bad treaty based upon bad science and policy ... We already see that those open to factxs are beginguestion the logic that Kyoto is built upon.
As for the US as the leading polluter - utter nonsense ... again lets use facts in a logical manner ... any hack can stack an argument to push an agenda
Posted by: | July 27, 2005 at 08:24 PM
A good point is that important (in relation to global warming) developing countries will be included, because they will contribute most to global warming when it really starts to matter. We have to find ways to make them grow without contributing to global warming. That's the main task. I wonder if the new agreement will be better at this than Kyoto.
Posted by: ivan | July 28, 2005 at 04:12 AM
"This is all about taxpayers' money being diverted from developing clean renewable technologies to try and make burning coal less dirty," Bob Brown, leader of the minority Australian Greens party, said in a statement. "
"i wonder if it would be a good bet to follow my natural cynicism, and say that one of the technologies to be pushed will be hydrogen fuel cell cars?"
I can understand these statements if they would come from market fundamentalists who are against governments pushing for particular technologies.
But from the viewpoint of environmentalists? At the moment the U.S. and important developing countries do not participate in Kyoto. But apperantly they are prepared to do something instead of nothing. Ok, clean coal or hydrogen are probably not the technologies that will win the hearts and minds of the Greens (their pet technology being windenergy). But if the result is less CO2-emissions, even environmentalists should support that. Why not have a variety of approaches? Is their any reason to believe that only the Kyoto-approach is the right one?
If a company like, say, Exxon is financially supporting a r&d-programm for clean technologies that will be freely available for developing countries (no IPR's), it contributes as much, but in a different way, to battling global warming, than BP does, a company that formally adheres to the Kyoto-targets.
If the U.S and China have a comparative advantage in clean coal why not let them profit by exporting it? It still will diminish CO2-emissions and it it good for the economic development of China. Countries that have a comparative advantage in wind can choose that technology and we all will be happy.
Posted by: ivan | July 28, 2005 at 04:46 AM
i'd put clean(er) coal in a different category, because we probably will have to burn more coal as oil and gas wind down. the cleaner the better.
on the other hand, i see hydrogen as an empty promise meant only to pacify the populace.
the article i referenced said hydrogen fuel cell cars are "at least 40, 50 years away." that's the same as saying we don't have a clue about how to make them cheap and reliable enough to go in everybody's garage.
but "promising" them, yeah that has a political advantage even today. no need to worry about global warming, or high gas prices, when hydrogen cars are "on the way" ... right?
Posted by: pdograph | July 28, 2005 at 09:30 AM
How long did it take for a complete national infrastructure to develop for gas powered cars? I don't think 40-50 years sounds unreasonable. If the profits are there, someone will find them.
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 09:41 AM
it took one guy, in a garage, maybe a year to build a workable gas powered car.
really, there is a lot here if you think about it. a lot of the breakthroughs we love happened fast, with little resources behind them.
we're talking about something completely different when we press against a hard wall for 30 years (it is 30 years since Nixon's fuel cell initiative), and still see 40-50 years ahead of us.
in fact, that is the challenge i'll make to you. name a technology that was so hard that it took 30-50 years of national research effort ... and then worked?
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 09:58 AM
btw, people pretend the problem is infrastructure. the problem is that the cars currently cost a million dollars apiece, and last a fraction as long as our internal combustion engines.
not only to you pay $1,000,000 ... you'd have to pay it 2-4 times as often!
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:00 AM
are you economists familiar with Japan's "Fifth Generation Computer" project?
i'd say it works as a parallel, for big goals, huge national effort, and essentially no success.
why shouldn't we discuss the possibility that hydrogen will go the same way?
it it because (despite the history of such things) economists see "incentives" as equivalent to "success?"
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:09 AM
Well... here's one www.computerhistory.org/timeline
and Goddard flew the first rocket in 1926, we went into space in 1961.
Both were developed with national research effort (government funding) and both seem pretty successful to me (and one of them is pretty cheap now).
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 10:16 AM
extra credit question ... why do we all have computers, but not all of us have space rockets?
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:16 AM
i'm impatient, so i'll answer the question for you.
the price curve was dependent on the technology. fuel cells, and space rockets, "work" when price is no object. in fact, i understand the russians are selling a moon-ride for $100,000,000 right now.
on the other hand, the price curve, the rate at which a technology may be made inexepensive, varies tremendously.
it's ... simplistic ... to assume that any technology you desire will follow a price curve to meet your ... whims.
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:22 AM
btw, here's the story of the fifth generation computer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:23 AM
I'm guessing you're going to say personal space travel is too expensive. But, it's getting cheaper (http://www.spaceadventures.com/).
As the technology develops, fuel cells will get cheaper. I'm not claiming it's the optimal or only solution. I just have confidence that as gas power becomes more expensive, investments in fuel cell technologies will pay off.
DVD players used to cost $4-500, I just bought one for $19.99. That's a ratio of 20-1. Apply the same thing to your $1,000,000 car and it's $50,000. Now we're in the ball park (and now I'll stop trying to egg you on).
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Nice job anticipating my response...you took some of the fun out of it.
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 10:31 AM
i think the non-uniformity of costs supports my view.
i mean, there isn't some kind of economic law is there, that for any commodity or technology, prices will fall over time (forever?) until they reach "convenient" levels?
i think people in general come to accept falling costs, but i'm afraid that is through a misunderstanding of technology.
we've had a good run on some specific technologies (most noticably digital electronics), but it is hardly a general rule, or law.
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:34 AM
No law or theorem that I know of...just plenty of anecdotal evidence.
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 10:40 AM
anecdotal evidence that *all* technologies reach "convenient" costs over time, or that *some* do?
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 10:40 AM
Why are they building fueling stations for $1,000,000 cars?
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf
Posted by: Tim Haab | July 28, 2005 at 11:01 AM
lol, that's my question!
my answer is that it is a combination of this misunderstanding of technology, and political expedience.
fwiw, here is documentation that Toyota intends to remove 95% of the current ($1,000,000) cost of fuel cell cars by 2015, to reach a cost of $50,000 in today's dollars.
again, compare and contrast to the stated goals of the Fifth Generation Computer project.
and note that Toyota does not put all their eggs in this basket. they are cleaning up with hybrids that *are* getting cheaper, and probably could do so with pure electrics, even if their "95% project" never pays off.
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 11:12 AM
sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000850047257
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 11:12 AM
oh, and i missed that "hydrogen" has just become "pork" in today's budgets. i mean, there is a lot of profit to be made, right? just get a governement contract to develop cars and/or filling stations.
Posted by: odograph | July 28, 2005 at 11:14 AM