One of the major problems with attempts by government to select winners in the selection of energy sources is that they are almost certain to select inefficient and quite possibly even environmentally inferior choices compared to leaving these choices to the workings of the market. The choice of energy sources is complicated, region specific, and subject to being influenced by the many special interests with something to gain by the choice made. Industries that make solar panels or windmill parts are more than likely to lobby for their particular solutions without regard for the larger national interest.
The national interest is not to satisfy various interest groups but to supply energy at the lowest possible cost after fully taking into account the adverse environmental effects of each alternative. Energy is an input to many products and services; higher cost energy increases the cost of these products and services, and makes them less competitive in the marketplace.
Cap and trade, if implemented without favoratism (a big if, of course), is one way to try to take into account the adverse environmental effects of energy use on climate change. But attempts to use this approach assume that there is a significant relationship, and that if there is, that we can accurately determine the exact “cap” that would avoid the alleged adverse effects of the resulting increased emissions of CO2. As explained in an earlier post, the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship is not supported by current observations. Hence there is currently no basis for a cap on CO2 emissions.
With some significant exceptions, the choice of energy sources to be built and used has traditionally been decided in the United States by the market rather than by government. In order to insure that the environmental effects of each source are fully taken into account it is necessary that the full social costs of these adverse effects be taken into account by those making the choices. This is ideally done by including these environmental costs in the price of energy from these sources.
Adverse Environmental Effects of Energy Sources Can Be Determined or at least Attempted
About 15 years ago several economists and I attempted to compare then existing taxes on various energy sources with the adverse environmental effects each of these sources cause. In doing so, we excluded solar, wind, and the possible adverse effects of CO2 on climate to simplify the effort. Our findings can be found here and more fully here. Generally speaking, we found that coal was somewhat “undertaxed,” gasoline was about neutral, and natural gas “overtaxed” compared to their adverse environmental effects. Now that we know that there are no significant adverse effects resulting from increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (at least based on currently available information), the results from this earlier study appear to be as valid today as they were then (although they could be usefully updated and expanded to additional sources, of course). The National Academy of Sciences is now making such an effort.
So contrary to current efforts to impose “renewable energy standards” the most economically justifiable approach would be to adjust existing taxes on various energy sources to account for the adverse environmental effects that we know exist and allow the market to work its will. This effort might start with our previous findings and add the adverse environmental effects of solar and wind sources. For example, wind turbines take a significant toll on migratory bird species that needs to be taken into account to the extent possible.
Renewable Energy Standards Can Be Very Expensive
Many economic decisions are best left to the workings of the market. Since markets generally result in more economically efficient solutions it makes sense to use them to make those decisions rather than using politically-based decisions. The choice of energy sources is an excellent example.
Some politicians may regard renewable energy standards as a “free” consolation prize for environmentalists if cap and trade should be turned down. Unfortunately, it is far from free. It is likely to lead to higher energy costs for many years and quite possibly inferior environmental choices. Where the energy source is intermitant, such as wind and solar, the cost of building substitute sources to insure availability needs to be taken into account, as they would be in private markets.
I was looking for this particular the other day. i don’t generally post throughout forums but i desired to say thank you!
I discovered your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the superb operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN Information Reader. Searching for ahead to reading extra from you later on!…
I’ve been into environmentalism for 20 some odd years now. I’ve always wanted to find a way to reduce our usage of the electrical grid, which I’ve done to some extent with a few solar panels, but I can’t really afford anything that would power the whole home. I’ve been looking into building a cheap magnetic generator (here is one example I found, but I’ve been wondering how hard it would be. Have you had any experice with this or others?
Dr. Carlin,
I would humbly like to thank you for your courage and conviction to strive to uphold the integrity of science that is being kidnapped and discredited by the political alarmist believers. After having gotten somewhat seriously involved in researching the details of climate over the last couple of years I understand the importance of efforts like yours being supported and disseminated by those of us who have not established our own authoritative notoriety.
I strongly encourage all to do similarly, as well as contact federal legislators and political leaders daily until cap and tax is defeated and the agw alarmist agenda is eliminated according to true scientific methodology.
I would like to strongly suggest that you join Sen. Inhofe on his trip to speak at the Copenhagen meeting in December. This idea just came to me and I believe it to be a great one. Please, give it some thought and act to do so. I do believe that would make a tremendous impact in this struggle and undercut the efforts to suppress your message and request. I will contact Inhofe’s office and suggest everyone else does so. With that I feel my contribution to the effort for today is fulfilled. Now, let’s get busy and get you on a plane in December!
[…] is to keep the Federal Government out of the choice of energy sources (as described in an earlier post), and limit its involvement to effective regulaton of existing health, safety, and environmental […]
Alternative energy can be a safer choice when used properly.
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in composing this article. I am going for the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your fanciful writing abilities has prompted me to start my own blog now. Actually the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine example of it.
Greetings! I’m new to the site. I’ve read several comments about cooling solar panels but I haven’t seen anything about this: Will spraying the hot surface of solar panel glass with cool water break the glass? I am concerned about the sudden temperature change introducing stress to the glass surf.
Alterantive energy is the only way forward these day, great post
Kudos for maintaining such a wonderful portal. Your weblog is not only knowledgeable but also very creative too. We find a limited number of bloggers who are capable of create not so easy stuff that creatively. A lot of people search for information on a topic like this. I have gone in detail through many blogs to find knowledge with regard to this.Looking to many more from your site !!
Good points, I think I will definitely subscribe!🙂. I’ll go and read some more!
Interesting article. People definitely need to realize the realistic threat that global warming has on our global climate and starting with green energy in our own homes is crucial. If everyone simply does something small for our environment then results will be great! I’ve looked into the different home green energy solutions and one that appears really impressive at present is magnetic energy. Heres a link to an interesting article I recently read about it: <A href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Magnetic-Energy-Generator—A-4-Hour-DIY-Project-That-Will-Save-You-Thousands-Every-Year
Finally, an issue that I am passionate about. I have looked for information of this caliber for the last several hours. Your site is greatly appreciated.
Dr. Carlin,
I would humbly like to thank you for your courage and conviction to strive to uphold the integrity of science that is being kidnapped and discredited by the political alarmist believers. After having gotten somewhat seriously involved in researching the details of climate over the last couple of years I understand the importance of efforts like yours being supported and disseminated by those of us who have not established our own authoritative notoriety.
I strongly encourage all to do similarly, as well as contact federal legislators and political leaders daily until cap and tax is defeated and the agw alarmist agenda is eliminated according to true scientific methodology.
I would like to strongly suggest that you join Sen. Inhofe on his trip to speak at the Copenhagen meeting in December. This idea just came to me and I believe it to be a great one. Please, give it some thought and act to do so. I do believe that would make a tremendous impact in this struggle and undercut the efforts to suppress your message and request. I will contact Inhofe’s office and suggest everyone else does so. With that I feel my contribution to the effort for today is fulfilled. Now, let’s get busy and get you on a plane in December!
The main problem with coal is in the mining, not the burning — if the $50 bn or so wasted on feckless climate research over the last two decades had been spent on concrete problems, like desertification in Africa (due mostly to agricultural practices) and low-impact coal mining, everybody would be much better off.
For nearly all of human history, “renewable” energy has been all that humanity had. Life was, as they say, nasty, brutish, and short. European and North American forests were denuded for fuel. “Renewable” mandates in various states (and Europe, with Australia to follow) are causing an environmentally-catastrophic boom in industrial wind turbine plants, which generate no useful electricity and save no CO2 (an irrelevant consideration anyway, as you point out).
The developed world has finally gone completely insane.
There is a lots of clean energy that is carbon based including some grades of coal if CO2 is not labeled as a pollutant. Natural gas burns very clean. Automobiles, locomotives, and jet engines burn carbon based fuels much more cleanly and efficiently than they did before the writing of the Clean Air Act. Our efforts to burn eastern coal(our greatest natural energy reserve) has not faired nearly as well through the regulatory process (including efforts to cap and trade). We still have trees dying in the mountains and smog (from sulfuric acid aerosols). We still have mercury accumulating in fish. We need to clean the coal before we burn it and not call CO2 a pollutant to be regulated. What are the economics associated with coal liquifaction or gasification (including transportation costs) compared with scrubbers on smoke stacks if CO2 is not considered a pollutant?
Great blog. Nice to see a calm discussion of the issues. Would be interested in your definition of “renewable energy.”
I’ve downloaded and skimmed through your report. Interesting. I may have some questions and comments later after taking more time to go through it. The NAS report you cited was schediuled to have a preliminary report released last month but has apparently not reached that goal. Is that sort of time-lag (yeah, I know it’s only about two weeks late, but I’m a pushy tax-payer and you’ve got my interest piqued) the norm? I also get the sense that your attitude toward taxing “externalities” may have shifted somewhat over the last several years.
Your posts are quite informative. Please keep it up.
R.E. Phelan