Showing posts with label carbon pricing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon pricing. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Thoughts: 11 Nov 2021--Happy Armistice Day!

 


A discussion of the climate crisis—the historical transformation of nature and its implications for our history—written from the safety of an Upper West Side apartment could seem remote. The Anthropocene remained an abstract intellectual proposition. The coronavirus crisis has stripped even the most sheltered of us of that illusion.
The Anthropocene as "polycrisis" (as Tooze describes it elsewhere in his book). Whether as an addendum to the climate crisis or as a manifestation of that crisis, the pandemic revealed how we can't hide from the consequences of our choices (action or inaction).
Even though economists widely agree on the basic principles behind carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies, for example— and argue forcefully in favor of such policies— and even after decades of academic discussion, countless learned policy briefs, and some half-hearted government moves in Europe, Canada, and China, we’re still not paying anything close to an appropriate price for throwing our carbon junk into our air.
These words were published in 2020. Since then, Europe has moved significantly in this direction (carbon pricing) and Canada & China have made moves. The U.S. has this issue on deck, with perhaps as many as 49 senators and the Biden Admin are getting on board. Time to make this happen!

There are many who share responsibility without any visible proof of guilt. There are many more who have become guilty without being in the least responsible. Among the responsible in a broader sense must be included all those who continued to be sympathetic to Hitler as long as it was possible, who aided his rise to power, and who applauded him in Germany and in other European countries.
Arendt here refers to Hitler, Germany, and Europe, to whom else m and where else might her observation apply?

Arendt began by noting that although the two ideas of “liberation” and “freedom” were often confused and conflated, they were not the same. Liberation consisted of a rebellious breaking of shackles, the dream of political upheavals from the dawn of recorded history, and had always been the focus of historians and other intellectuals because all the drama was contained in the fight against tyranny, or what Arendt called all the good stories.
And so what is "freedom." (Stay tuned!)

As [Jean] Gebser knew, images and symbols operate at the level of the magical structure, bypassing the critical, reflective mind. The perpetual “now” of the ever-present Internet does not allow for the deep, meditative time in which the mind can focus on values and understand why it thinks as it does. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but without the words to tell you, you may not even know what you are looking at—something all good advertisers know.
As Collingwood argued, without language we have no thoughts. "Thought" is created by and comprised of language. Images and symbols alone appeal to the soul, not the mind.

The full and precise articulation of the doctrine of infinitely interpenetrated totality (dharmadha-tu) is one of the notable achievements of Mahayana Buddhist thought. It is also a characteristic theme of Greek thought. In fact, the Greeks seem to have been the first thinkers to formulate the concept of infinity except as an indefinite mass, the first to give it mathematical and logical formulations. The concept of interpenetrated infinities, that is, an infinity of separate entities in which each one contains all the others, was first articulated by Anaxagoras, in his conception of matter. Of infinite entities, each is conceived to have in it tiny parts of every other. Each separate thing contains, in a microcosmic form, everything else. Each apparent unit is in fact infinity squared—which is to say infinity to the infinite power.
The ability of the ancient Greeks and Indians (and some others) to develop such deep insights without the benefit of technological science is astounding.

Since its origins, capitalism has been synonymous with Schumpeter’s “gale of creative destruction.” The gale has now morphed into a hurricane that is genuinely creative but also extremely destructive.
Creativity is a Good (see Whitehead & Charles Hartshorne for details), but so are Conservation & Balance. Contemporary capitalism & its resulting consumerism and their thirst for novelty have become like the mischief of the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

Hayek’s brand of antiauthoritarianism was ambivalent about democracy. “Democracy is a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom,” he wrote. “There has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies.” What mattered to Hayek was liberty, and by liberty he meant the rights of an aristocracy against the central government, whatever form that government took.
The Haves always fear democracy and the Have-Nots. And not without some basis in history, but often to excess and therefore working to kill real democracy.

To believe that Trump showed us who we really are is no different from believing that Obama showed us who we really are. Narcissism is expressed in extremes of self-contempt as well as self-adoration. Both are paralyzing. They tell us more about the mind of the person in front of the mirror than the objective facts of the image in the glass.
As individuals, we are complex & often self-contradictory in our beliefs & actions. How much more so as a nation of individual, self-contradictory selves all given to some measure of narcissism.

In this book I argue that all progress, both theoretical and practical, has resulted from a single human activity: the quest for what I call good explanations.
An intriguing thought.

Monday, September 27, 2021

"Yes" to a "Carbon Price" & Dividend & "No" to a "Carbon Tax" (and There's a Difference)

 

tcJusSt nnpoooawdi 
Shared with Public
Public
Okay, fellow Dems, listen up! Don't support a "carbon tax" but do put a "price on carbon." What's the difference? Both a "tax" and a "price" would make fossil fuels more expensive and thus make renewable energy sources more attractive (and reduce overall energy use and increase energy efficiency). Both would affect the amount consumers would pay for fossil fuel-based energy sources and products produced with fossil fuels. Thus, from the view of an economist, she might say that a "tax" and a "price" are the same. But increasing the cost of carbon to users is only the half of what we should be doing. Citizens Climate Lobby (of which I'm a member) supports that EICDA: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This act would return the money collected as a "price" (or "tax" if you insist) to the people. In other words, unlike almost any other tax that I can think of (with perhaps the exception of social security taxes), the funds collected will be paid back to the people in short order (quarterly, most likely). In other words, taxes as we normally think of them go to fund government operations and programs. This is not what a "carbon price" via the EICDA would do. If any Dems in Congress think that they should fund their programs by the imposition of a "carbon tax," they're way wrong as a matter of economics, fairness, and electoral politics. Under the EICDA, funds collected would be paid as a "dividend" to the American people on an equal individual basis. In short, about 2/3 of American individuals and households would come out ahead. The wealthiest, who tend to have larger carbon footprints,: more travel (often by air), bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger everything. In short, this plan would help close the growing inequality in American society that contributes to the divisions that we're experiencing.
Of course, this means that all of us would face greater costs and that we'd be wise to make some changes. In short, we'd have to put on big-kids pants. We are in dire straits because of the unabated dumping of carbon in our atmosphere. Mother Nature can't handle all of this carbon, and she's sick, very, very sick. Her prognosis, and consequently ours as her children, is very dire. Not hopeless, but the longer we put off "treatment," the more drastic the steps we'll eventually have to take to try to save her. (Well, really to save us humans; Mother Nature will survive, even without humans and other species that are caught in the sixth extinction.) We need to pay to play. Next time we take a trip, we should weigh the costs across the various means based on an accurate comparison of the carbon cost involved. Car, plane, train, walk, bike, mass transit? We need a price to compare the cost we impose on Mother Nature by assessing a price (cost) on ourselves now that we know that we can no longer afford the free ride that we've granted ourselves in freely dumping our waste into our environment.

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Letter to President Biden: Carbon pricing is essential in the budget reconciliation package.

My email to President Biden sent today. Feel free to join me and Citizens Climate Lobby in this effort. Copy & paste freely! 

Subject: Carbon pricing is essential in the budget reconciliation package.

Dear President Biden:

Thank you for all of your hard work as president. I know that we're coming to another key juncture with the budget reconciliation bill. One key provision that I urge you to promote, or better yet, insist be included in the measure, is a carbon price and dividend provision with border adjustments. We need to address climate change NOW (as you've said), and a price on carbon is probably the most inclusive and efficient way to reduce our carbon consumption. The "dividend" portion of the scheme is the other key component of this scheme. The dividend will prevent lower and middle-income Americans from bearing too heavy a load in making the necessary adjustments. And, a border adjustment for carbon pricing (such as the EU is adopting) will keep American businesses on a level (if not advantageous) playing field. Now is the time, Mr. President, to get this done. We're running out of time. Please give this your all so that we can make real progress.

Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for your efforts addressing this greatest of challenges.

Sincerely,

Steve Greenleaf
1115 N. Arcadia
Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2638

 

Sunday, July 25, 2021

The Importance of Semantics: Fees with a Dividend--Not a Tax

 

Dumping carbon into the atmosphere we all share

We need to appreciate the importance of semantics when we discuss the economics of carbon pricing. For example, we pay for municipal services and amenities such as garbage, water, sewer, and electricity. We recognize that our payments for these products and services are fees, not taxes. We pay fees for the specific goods and services that we receive, whether from the government or from business. Taxes, not the other hand, are compulsory payments to fund the operations of government at all levels. Taxes aren't based on the provision of particular goods and services to individuals and families. Taxes fund the common defense, schools, roads and bridges, research, social security, and other government programs. (Some public goods operate on a mix of user fees and taxes, such as national parks and mass transit.)

A "carbon fee" (or a "price on carbon") combined with a dividend, such as envisioned by the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, is not a tax. In fact, it's hard to know what exactly to call it. The fees collected will be returned to the American people by way of regularly scheduled dividend payments. The revenue collected won't be used to fund government operations. There's not currently any government program quite like this that I can think of. 

Thus, a carbon fee functions like a sewer or garbage fee, except that it will be charged directly to producers, such as fossil fuel companies that extract and sell products that produce carbon emissions. At present, after we burn fossil fuels we effectively dump the remaining carbon into the atmosphere, where the excess carbon creates the familiar "greenhouse effect." In short, industrialized economies have treated the atmosphere as a garbage (carbon) dump for a couple of hundred years. But now the dump is full. A carbon fee puts a price on the use of our atmosphere as a carbon dump, and that fee will discourage use. Consumers of fossil-fueled products will see increased costs passed on to us, and we consumers will be able to compare the prices of products and services produced with more or less carbon pollution. Of course, consumers can use the carbon dividend to offset increased costs. But we can expect that most of us who have to watch our budgets will begin to look for less expensive (i.e., less carbon-intensive) alternatives. In fact, the dividends will prove a net gain for low and middle-income families. 

We should be conscious of this distinction when discussing any monetary implications associated with the production and use of carbon. The mention of a carbon tax is not only inaccurate; it also closes doors quickly and distracts many from any understanding of the benefits of a carbon fee. Thus, those who don't want to see a reduction of carbon pollution will refer to any price as a "tax" to try to trigger a reflexive, negative response. So if someone tries to talk to me about a "carbon tax," I readily agree that a carbon tax is a bad idea. But then I quickly pivot to say that a fee for carbon dumping with funds collected returned to Americans as a dividend is a great idea that we should all support and adopt immediately. 

Please join us (Citizens Climate Lobby) in promoting this fair and efficient approach to reducing our carbon dumping. Let's act to clean up our acts.