So would this plan work at reducing CO2 output and be bipartisan?
1.) Support nuclear power by the gov’t freeing up land and reducing red tape to build nuclear power plants, thereby reducing the cost to be competitive.
2.) Government suppport for the creation of geothermal plants.
3.) Government not allowing big oil companies to buy up the patents for e-cars.
4.) Government subsidies for farmers not to produce crops used for farmers to grow plants that take the most CO2 out of the atmosphere.
5.) The gov’t not allowing wind energy to be sued for the wind generators being "ugly".
While I will admit that this calls for gov’t intervention, they would not be creating a tax scheme and this only calls for the government to stop using the power that they are using to prevent land use for nuclear power and to start using the antimonopoly laws that are already on the books against big oil. Is there a reason why this would not reduce CO2 output dramatically, or is there a reason why skeptics should be against these type of measures?
Paul,
I have not insisted that CO2 causes no warming I have said that the amount of warming is over-exaggerated.
Baccheus,
Let me get this straight, allowing the gov’t to do what is already has the authority to do is too much government, but creating a scheme to tax the air is not. Really is that your argument? Forgive me if I do not agree with you.
Dana,
The gov’t can easily support geothermal and nuclear with tax incentives on contracting, which would reduce the upfront cost you are concerned about and not raise taxes. Further, as we are talking about improvement to infrastructure, the effect would increase overall revenue, thus increasing the amount the revenue generated by the gov’t, of course this would be a long term increase as opposed to a short term.
Dana,
This really goes into the meat of my question. Why would they try adding taxes during a recession as opposed to a tax incentive? The latter you will be able to get through congress, the former you may not. Seems like a misstep that will likely cause more partisanship and no real results.
Dana,
But I do agree that e-cars are starting not need patent law changes, though I worry that big oil will find some other ways to slow down the progress, which is really what I am concerned about. I give patents as an example of what has been done, but the gov’t has the ability to stop the formation of monopolies or limit their ability to stop or slow down competition.
Pheonix given Texaco bought a share of GM Ovonics and later obtained the patents for the nickel metal hydride battery, I would tend to think they weren’t really interested in producing a battery used for e-cars and putting themselves out of business, further for amount of energy created, gasoline is much more expensive as it is more mobile, so they make a larger profit and do care what the consumer uses.
The growing of crops was a suggestion as a replacement of the subsidies already in place, so no difference in cost. Otherwise drop the subsidies altogether, and the plants for produce would do the same thing, whichever you can get passed.
Also, not allowing lawsuits for "ugliness" for something made on their own property is certainly not the same as not allowing protests. Your rights to build on your own property should not be so easily infringed upon, because someone thinks it looks bad.
Dana, I have no doubt that you and I could provide nearly equal number of reputable sources for the cost of nuclear power and you sources would have them costing about twice as much as mine. But here is one impasse, as long as I think that nuclear power has the capability of being competitive and taking over the market without taxation, I cannot support taxation nor giving the government a precedent for increasing their ability to tax. In fact I would much prefer tax incentives and an increase in our normal taxes the traditional way, where I have no question as to the impact, than a new tax scheme that may or may not cost me significantly. Perhaps it comes from the fact that I have been around long enough to know not to trust dems or repubs. As such, I could change my mind on AGW, but not on cap and trade. This may not seem important, but realize I am a moderate and you all are going to have a wickedly difficult time passing anything if you are not willing to compromise.
Filed under: Wind Power
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
1) This would get bipartisan support, though I don’t think it would be very effective. The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to increasing construction costs. Plus reducing ‘red tape’ also potentially reduces safety – not the best idea for a nuclear power plant. So it would be bipartisan, but probably not very effective at reducing CO2 emissions in reality. But you never know – it might be effective if we find a way to build new nuclear plants relatively cheaply (which would probably involve significant government control of the process, as in France), and if there are no accidents which would lead to reinstatement of the ‘red tape’.
2) Depends what you mean by ‘government support’. If you mean providing funds, then how do you pay for those funds? Cap and trade does this by selling carbon permits, then using the money to fund R&D for technologies like geothermal energy. You can’t just call for ‘government support’ then oppose a ‘tax scheme’. You’ve got to pay for the ‘support’ somehow, and cap and trade or carbon taxes accomplish that.
So this would reduce CO2 output, but depending on the type of ‘support’, would not necessarily be bipartisan. Most conservatives just argue ‘let the free market take care of it’ and don’t want any ‘government support’ (i.e. subsidies) for alternative energy.
3) I would hope this would be bipartisan. It would have a very minor impact in reducing CO2 output if any. There are too many companies working on electric vehicle technology at this point for buying patents to be an effective means of preventing their advancement.
4) Interesting idea. It would probably get bipartisan support, and would help to reduce CO2 emissions somewhat.
5) This is probably a good one which would be relatively bipartisan.
Overall no, these ideas would not reduce CO2 emissions dramatically for the reasons stated above.
Coldfuse’s comments, as usual, are completely wrong. Wind is one of the cheapest sources of energy available. Do you really think Texas is installing wind turbines like gangbusters because the state is full of tree-hugging environmentalists?
I would opt for the government disallowing wind turbines altogether. They are expensive machines, requiring tremendous upkeep, produce expensive energy even in the best of circumstances, and can act as capacitors that wreak havoc on the grid under low load conditions.
Those all sound like good suggestions to me.
If they were suggested by a democrat, it would not be bipartisan. It would certainly be opposed by almost every republican in congress, just like they do everything democrats do to try to fix this mess that republicans put us in.
If it was suggested by a republican, it would probably get bipartisan support.
BTW, these suggestions in no way could replace cap and trade. But they would be good for working along with it.
1) No incentive to battle deforestation.
2) Waaay too much government. When you mess with the free-market you create unintended consequences.
Cap-and-trade allows the free market to work to achieve the most efficient and profitable solutions. Simply make companies pay for all of their resources — they now pay for land, water, physical resources, labor, etc, but they do not pay for to cleanup their pollution. Put a price on pollution and the non-polluting companies will profit handsomely.
When government dictates solutions, there is no incentive for innovation and technological advancement. Bringing "externalities" (i.e., costs that are not paid and therefore not part of a company’s decision process) into the free-market process will stimulate new better solutions. The smartest people and companies will be rewarded and those companies that cannot produce product without excessive pollution will be replaced by ones that can.
On one hand you insist that CO2 does not cause warming, and on the other hand you argue that nuclear power is important to reduce CO2.
It is not as if yoiu have thought any of this out–you just take whatever you think the "conservative" view is, not realizing that you take conflicting positions.
I agree with your first point especially. Nuclear energy is the most viable non-carbon emitting energy source out there.
some ok
but we have a energy production problem not a climate problem
lib’s want less power produced and control over that use.
i want increases of power production in non fossil fuel energy
remember people if fossil fuels are limited they will take care of them selves being used they will be gone!!!!!!!!!
even at the worst case that the earth did warm there will be no disasters we will adapt to a climate that food will grow in
You can’t have a ‘Bipartisan’ plan to reduce CO2 since most Republicans think AGW is a scam. But
1. Nuke plant production was shut down by Dems, so if they stop doing protesting the plants can be built again.
2. Nope. The GOP doesn’t mind Geothremal plants being built. The problem is making them profitable. Rebublicans would not want to expend Tax dollars on a ‘non competitive’ technology.
3. Big Oil doesn’t care if you fuel your car with oil, or charge your car by power plants run on oil. The whole ‘patent suppression’ thing is a myth (well with regards to E-cars at least). E cars are simply non competitive.
4. Republicans do not think CO2 is a problem so no money for silly ‘plant crops’ to bury them.
5. A ‘you can’t build that here’ lawsuit is MOST likely to come from the Left.
Not sure EITHER party wants to stomp on the civilian right to protest.