Sunday, February 25, 2007
Back to Normal vis a vis the New York Times
Here is a warmie supporting editorial which I think embodies the worst sort of 'watermelon' approach to environmentalism, that is, it's green on the outside, red on the inside.
The way to "clean up" less efficient coal burning power plants is, according to the NYT, either impose a carbon tax or impose a steadily decreasing cap on emissions.
This whole editorial is a little muddled. There are two issues here--dirty coal plants which put off gases other than CO2 and their necessary CO2 output. The cleanest coal plant in the world would put off only CO2, but that, apparently, is not good enough, as CO2, formerly the ideal for powerplant emissions, is now a deadly contaminant itself. Only one non nuclear fuel burns without producing CO2 and we're not even close to a hydrogen economy yet. But back to the editorial.
Tax is rapidly becoming a bad word in my vocabulary. I don't mind paying my fair share of the rent for my state and country, but the last thing we need is a tax on powerplants--corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes from users and purchasers of their goods and services and, regarding electricity, that's you and I. So if I have to pay ever more for my power, will I use less of it as a result of the tax induced price climb? Probably not. It would depend on how high the tax is.
Cap the emissions (which I assume includes CO2) to make the powerplants 'clean' themselves up sounds OK. But what happens if the powerplant can't meet the government set standard? There is, in fact, a word for that circumstance--it's called brownout.
Democrat California governor Gray Davis and the Democrat controlled state house messed with regulations concerning the power companies a few years ago in an effort to make the companies improve themselves. Anybody seen Davis lately? Cleaning your pool, delivering your paper? Anyone?
That these ideas come from dumb as a rock Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and nobody's fool, but a warmie, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) should give us pause. Of course the Democrats support a new tax.
No one is for dirty air, but we're not returning to whale oil and buggies to reduce our collective so called carbon footprint. The free market makes for the most efficient use of stored carbon fuels (if the government doesn't step in and make a dog's breakfast of it) and powerplants that get as much electrical energy from each ton of coal as possible will inevitably replace the ones that have to buy more coal (or natural gas for that matter) to make a kilowatt. There is no need for government intervention here--the new plants are ever more efficient, as are the appliances that use the electricity produced.
If you really want CO2 free electric power right now, go nuclear. Oh that's right, that's not an option because the government has made such powerplants not commercially viable due to over-regulation. Brilliant.
The way to "clean up" less efficient coal burning power plants is, according to the NYT, either impose a carbon tax or impose a steadily decreasing cap on emissions.
This whole editorial is a little muddled. There are two issues here--dirty coal plants which put off gases other than CO2 and their necessary CO2 output. The cleanest coal plant in the world would put off only CO2, but that, apparently, is not good enough, as CO2, formerly the ideal for powerplant emissions, is now a deadly contaminant itself. Only one non nuclear fuel burns without producing CO2 and we're not even close to a hydrogen economy yet. But back to the editorial.
Tax is rapidly becoming a bad word in my vocabulary. I don't mind paying my fair share of the rent for my state and country, but the last thing we need is a tax on powerplants--corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes from users and purchasers of their goods and services and, regarding electricity, that's you and I. So if I have to pay ever more for my power, will I use less of it as a result of the tax induced price climb? Probably not. It would depend on how high the tax is.
Cap the emissions (which I assume includes CO2) to make the powerplants 'clean' themselves up sounds OK. But what happens if the powerplant can't meet the government set standard? There is, in fact, a word for that circumstance--it's called brownout.
Democrat California governor Gray Davis and the Democrat controlled state house messed with regulations concerning the power companies a few years ago in an effort to make the companies improve themselves. Anybody seen Davis lately? Cleaning your pool, delivering your paper? Anyone?
That these ideas come from dumb as a rock Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and nobody's fool, but a warmie, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) should give us pause. Of course the Democrats support a new tax.
No one is for dirty air, but we're not returning to whale oil and buggies to reduce our collective so called carbon footprint. The free market makes for the most efficient use of stored carbon fuels (if the government doesn't step in and make a dog's breakfast of it) and powerplants that get as much electrical energy from each ton of coal as possible will inevitably replace the ones that have to buy more coal (or natural gas for that matter) to make a kilowatt. There is no need for government intervention here--the new plants are ever more efficient, as are the appliances that use the electricity produced.
If you really want CO2 free electric power right now, go nuclear. Oh that's right, that's not an option because the government has made such powerplants not commercially viable due to over-regulation. Brilliant.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 12:35 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Rog,
I disagree w/ your position regarding power plant emissions so strongly that I was tempted to refer to you w/ an epithet at the commencement of this comment.
The free market works for some things and is less effective for others, nevertheless, you intone its virues for every occasion. One size fits all.
I would have thought that the implosion of Communism would have taught you a lesson more expansive than "Communism does not work." I would have thought that the demise of Communism, flavored with the debacle in Iraq, which is the result of our country's leaders seeing the world through neoconservative glasses, would prompt you to conclude that any particular system of beliefs applied to every set of circumstances, is bound to perform poorly in a few of them.
So it is with the free market and our efficient use of stored carbon fuels.
Power companies have a vested interest in producing power at the least expensive cost in terms of dollars. Nobody is for dirty air you say but if left to power companies were left to regulate themselves, we would have dirty air b/c it is cheaper to produce power w/o scrubbers, etc.
I am from New England and togther with other parts of the northeast, we are experiencing the acidification of our environment b/c of power plant emission in the midwest. Or is acid rain another warmie myth?
Instead of blasting the warmies, why not suggest a possible solution to a real problem b/c the free market ain't it.
T
I disagree w/ your position regarding power plant emissions so strongly that I was tempted to refer to you w/ an epithet at the commencement of this comment.
The free market works for some things and is less effective for others, nevertheless, you intone its virues for every occasion. One size fits all.
I would have thought that the implosion of Communism would have taught you a lesson more expansive than "Communism does not work." I would have thought that the demise of Communism, flavored with the debacle in Iraq, which is the result of our country's leaders seeing the world through neoconservative glasses, would prompt you to conclude that any particular system of beliefs applied to every set of circumstances, is bound to perform poorly in a few of them.
So it is with the free market and our efficient use of stored carbon fuels.
Power companies have a vested interest in producing power at the least expensive cost in terms of dollars. Nobody is for dirty air you say but if left to power companies were left to regulate themselves, we would have dirty air b/c it is cheaper to produce power w/o scrubbers, etc.
I am from New England and togther with other parts of the northeast, we are experiencing the acidification of our environment b/c of power plant emission in the midwest. Or is acid rain another warmie myth?
Instead of blasting the warmies, why not suggest a possible solution to a real problem b/c the free market ain't it.
T
# posted by 
: 2:10 PM
: 2:10 PM 
Before dismissing carbon taxes, why don't you take a look at our website, www.carbontax.org. You'll learn that carbon taxes are totally consistent with harnessing free market forces and are supported by a variety of conservative economists (see the "Who Supports" page of our web site). You'll also learn that the tax is on pollution, not the powerplant, and makes the free market work by moving prices closer to the point where they include the costs that emitting carbon imposes on all of us. Most important, the carbon tax shouldn't be just another way for the government to increase revenues. We propose a revenue neutral carbon tax, with the revenues from the tax used to reduce other regressive taxes (payroll taxes or sales taxes) or simply rebated to all Americans as Alaska does with its Alaska Permanent Fund.
"I am from New England and togther with other parts of the northeast, we are experiencing the acidification of our environment b/c of power plant emission in the midwest. Or is acid rain another warmie myth?"
Then make nuclear plants viable...even France understands that the only way to do away with coal powerplants through nuclear energy.
My guess is that those who are the loudest in the AGW debate are not serious enough about their position to actual advocate such a course of action.
Then make nuclear plants viable...even France understands that the only way to do away with coal powerplants through nuclear energy.
My guess is that those who are the loudest in the AGW debate are not serious enough about their position to actual advocate such a course of action.
Tony, I don't believe they use scrubbers, but I could be wrong. And yes, acid rain is a myth but not a warmie myth. Dan, I'll write about your ideas when I get a chance. I support the Alaska Fund and think that it should be replicated in Iraq, but I'm hesitant to say ever a tax is good. I'll look into it, though. The greens have painted themselves into a corner with a spirited campaign against nuke power and have no place to go now that they hate CO2. Thanks all for the comments. Polite, well reasoned and thought provoking. Way to go guys.
Tony, What debacle in Iraq? You mean the Shia/Sunni struggle. How is that of our making? We turned out Hitler lite Saddam Hussein and killed his sons, and have sheparded them very slowly towards a representative style government at the cost of 800 soldiers a year. Debacle is a quarter million dead or captured in Stalingrad. Debacle is 80,000 captured in the Phillippines. We are in a war waged by suicide bombers who will do anything. And we can't take historically tiny casualties? Debacle? I don't see it.
Roger,
If our goal was to kill Saddam, Udey, and Quesey [sic] we accomplished it. If our goal was to rebuild Iraq's economy and foster a representative government, well then "Debacles R Us."
Let me count the ways: sectarian violence; wholesale corruption; rampant crime; ethnic cleansing; Al Qeda in Iraq.
It's not the casualties Roger, all of which are regrettable to be sure. It's the complete and utter failure of the neoconservative vision of a democratic Iraq run by free market principles. Why didn't we just try and teach pigs to fly?
There is a theme than runs through all of your comments on this subject which is: "By any standard of measurement, the invasion of Iraq was an unqualified military success." I agree.
The theme that runs through all of my comments is: "By any standard of measurement, the invasion of Iraq has been an unqualified failure id the goals were to instill democracy and free market practices."
Iraq's economy is more of a shambles than b/f the invasion; there is a growing humanitarian crisis as the intelligensia and middle class free the country to neighboring states; there is a civil war being waged along sectarian lines that will have to play itself out b/c there is nothing we can do to control it militarily and the Iraqi government can't control even it were willing.
We sure liberated the hell out of Iraq.
That's the debacle I'm talking about.
T
Post a Comment
If our goal was to kill Saddam, Udey, and Quesey [sic] we accomplished it. If our goal was to rebuild Iraq's economy and foster a representative government, well then "Debacles R Us."
Let me count the ways: sectarian violence; wholesale corruption; rampant crime; ethnic cleansing; Al Qeda in Iraq.
It's not the casualties Roger, all of which are regrettable to be sure. It's the complete and utter failure of the neoconservative vision of a democratic Iraq run by free market principles. Why didn't we just try and teach pigs to fly?
There is a theme than runs through all of your comments on this subject which is: "By any standard of measurement, the invasion of Iraq was an unqualified military success." I agree.
The theme that runs through all of my comments is: "By any standard of measurement, the invasion of Iraq has been an unqualified failure id the goals were to instill democracy and free market practices."
Iraq's economy is more of a shambles than b/f the invasion; there is a growing humanitarian crisis as the intelligensia and middle class free the country to neighboring states; there is a civil war being waged along sectarian lines that will have to play itself out b/c there is nothing we can do to control it militarily and the Iraqi government can't control even it were willing.
We sure liberated the hell out of Iraq.
That's the debacle I'm talking about.
T
# posted by : 10:08 AM
: 10:08 AM << Home
