My toughest opinion poll ever

The Obama-Biden plan delays the campaign promise to "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." What do you think?

Do you ... "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions"?

• strongly support
• somewhat support (I'd strongly support a carbon tax)
• somewhat support (I'm worried about the recession)
• somewhat support (some other reason)
• somewhat do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
• somewhat do not support (wait until after the recession)
• somewhat do not support (some other reason)
• strongly do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
• strongly do not support (wait until after the recession)
• strongly do not support (some other reason)

You can register your opinion at the opinion poll found in the 3rd item from the top in the left hand column of this blog. The link supporting the case for "strongly support" can be found right above the poll (Climate Policy in 2009!).

Comments

[Hydra]

I think it is impossible to to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 without economic consequences that may result in the deaths of millions.

It's a question of whether a catastrophe kills us or prevention of the catastrophe kills us.

Everything has a price, so which catatstrophe is cheaper?

[odograph]

I think the question to ask Average Americans is "how high should we tax (directly or as the result of cap and trade) gasoline?"

Dollars to donuts they'll name a price they can afford, to keep driving. (Some would probably boggle that cap and trade would make them pay a higher price at all ... they might expect the "trade" to take care of it.)

[David Zetland]

Damn John -- you're trying for a two-fer on that question (and I screwed up my answer...)

Put READ THEM ALL BEFORE YOU VOTE in BOLD!!!

I declare these results flawed due to poor methodology :(

[Dano]

Hydra, that's not what most of the recent analyses are saying.

Maybe the Limbaugh-type sites are saying this, but not the analyses that actually...er...analyze the situation.

Best,

D

[odograph]

No one has to die, they just have to ride a bicycle. The problem is that bicycle riding is "death" (or "the devil") to most Americans.

[Hydra]

D:

I'm not listening to Limbaugh, nor have I ever. I'm an environmental chemist by training, and and engineer by occupation.

I think we can make some savings, but 80% is unrealistic without serious economic repercussions. We can take 80% out of a 450HP Lexus and still have a useful vehicle, but its hard to do that with a Moped. We may even be able to make some of the economic repercussions good ones, but the total picture seems bleak under this scenario.

I believe the laws of economics boil down to the laws of energy: everthing is a trade, and nothing is free. I believe we can do a lot with renewables: I crossed an ocean that way once. It isn't cheap, and it isn't free.

But I still think an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 will kill almost as many people as global warming will. I know too many people who already live on the edge, and I distinguish between new technology, more efficiency, and just doing without.

My prediction is that we will make certain advances but we soon come back to the same problems we ave now: What to do with nuclear and coal waste?; how much renewables vs how much backup?; how much transmission vs how much local?; whose back yard?

Many of thee boil down to property rights which is why cap and trade is an issue.

I still don't see the "er, analysis" that shows how you cut 80% out of the combustion economy without affecting the rest of it. I have a business that I'd love to cut 80% of the combustion out of, but I can't see how to do it without starving. My opinion is an expression of what I'm closest to and know best.

Reasonable people can disagree without being a Limbaugh. By 2050 I won't be around, so I can afford to be dispassionate.

People who believe as you do have not "sold" me yet; and I'm on "your side". But if you can't sell me, you sure can't sell Limbaugh. Anyway you need a better sales pitch than name calling.

Good luck with your analysis.

--------------------------

Odo: someone figured we could all pedal to generate our elctricity too. The result would be that our eletricity would cost $60,000 a month or some such.

I think that means people will die. We can grow all our crops Amish style, also. We just need 75% more land.

As environmentalists we had better plan on coming to ethical terms with what it is we are really proposing.

[Dan]

I expect you would obtain more accurate results if you prefaced "carbon tax" and "cap-and-trade" with "revenue-neutral." It's far more important for carbon taxes, since many people haven't figured out that both a carbon tax and cap-and-trade result in costs being passed on to consumers.

Recall that President-elect Obama had to correct Governor Richardson (a former Secretary of Energy) on this point in the January 5, 2008 New Hampshire presidential debate: "I do disagree with one thing, though, that Bill said, and that is that on a carbon tax the cost will be passed onto consumers and that won't happen with a cap-and-trade. Under a cap-and-trade there will be a cost. Plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment, and that's going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers."

[Dano]

Hydra,

That's great that you think that way, but - again - many recent analyses differ with your opinion. The reason I brought up Rush is that the assertions of "economic catastrophe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" are without analysis.

But perhaps you have found some empirical scholarship that I'm unaware of that finds similar to your assertion.

Best,

D

[Barry]

Dan,
It is not necessarily true that a carbon tax gets passed on and the emissions price in a cap and trade system is paid by the polluter.
The cost pass through rates for both a tax and trading system depend on market structure, among other things. For example, 60-100% of CO2 costs in the EU ETS were passed on by power generators in Netherlands and Germany (very deregulated market). If the tax is imposed upstream and the downstream market has non carbon constrained competitors the rate of cost pass though will be very low. The devil is in the details I guess.

cheers,

barry

[Dan]

Barry,
If I understand you correctly, we are in total agreement. As I tried to make clear in my comment and quote from the President-elect, it is not true that a carbon tax will be passed on to consumers while polluters will pay the cap-and-trade emissions price. The extent to which the costs of either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program will be passed through will be affected by whether the tax or cap-and-trade costs are imposed upstream or downstream, the availability of non-carbon constrained competitors, consumer price-elasticity and I expect a variety of other factors.

My key point was that for purposes of the poll, both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade should have been prefaced by "revenue-neutral." That's the only way to get an apples to apples comparison, since otherwise many people assume incorrectly that a carbon tax is not revenue-neutral (our Carbon Tax Center proposal, like most other carbon tax proposals, is revenue-neutral) and they don't even think about whether a cap-and-trade program would impose costs on consumers and would be revenue-neutral (most proposed cap-and-trade programs, in fact, are not revenue-neutral).

[Hydra]

Revenue Neutral, huh?

As I see it all our revenue is spoken for (that and probably a lot more considering our current deficits).

So, if we take all the carbon tax and use it to replace other taxes, the difference to me is that it still comes out of my pocket.

But, all this carbon abating technology and investment is going to cost money too, which will show up in my electric and fuel bill, and my usable revenue will go down.

Of course I no longer have to buy fuel, per se, so I have some offsetting savings, but so far I see no path that gets me, personally, to revenue neutral on this.

[Hydra]

Take a look at Denmark to see how they plan such a system. All they need for their analysis to work is 3% interest, $68 oil, and zero environmental cost for all the changes they plan to make. Basically, they think they can replace fuel expenditures with capital costs. But if they over run the plan, then they are sunk.