old europe wrote:I'm not sure where you're going with the point of "massive wealth transfer". Is this the argument that has come up more often recently that America shouldn't bankroll repressive regimes? Or are you saying that the money spent on oil imports would be better invested domestically?
I mean the latter. We are spending too much on imported petroleum and are feeding a slightly monopolistic cadre of suppliers. I'm not aware of any regimes we are "bankrolling", oppressive or otherwise.
old europe wrote:georgeob1 wrote: .... I also believe that government action in response to these new conditions should focus on the economic aspects of the situation (and not the AGW frenzy) and on enabling - not leading or directing - the needed response.
I'm mostly with you right up to this point. Thing is that we probably disagree about what constitutes "enabling" and what constitutes "leading or directing".
I would describe the German Renewable Energy Sources Act as government action that was enabling increased development of renewables. It allows private citizens to sell back energy into the grid (previously difficult due to the dominance of big providers) and sets a guaranteed tariff. The tariffs go down every year to encourage more efficient production. At the same time, it allows people to invest a rather large sum into renewables, as it gives them a dependable timeframe for amortisation.
I think this is an excellent example of "smart subsidies" that will come down over time and thereby spur growth in the free market, rather than hampering development by having people depend on subsidies.
I'm sure you're example for "enabling" energy independence would be the government stepping aside and opening up protected areas for drilling...
While I'm not familiar with the German law to which you refer, we have long had a similar arrangement here. The former regional monopolies granted to electrical power producers and distributers have been broken up, enabling different producers to compete in the same market and (foolishly in my view) mandating the separation of production and distribution of power. Companies that distribute the power (and sell to their regional customers) are required to sell their power at a price based on the average cost of generation and to buy excess, locally produced, alternative power at a stipulated (but lower) price from their customers. This enables folks to install (say) solar power panels of their roofs, knowing that they can benefit from all the power so produced. I don't view this as a subsidy at all in that no government funds are involved, and that commodities are bought and sold at close to their real economic values. The distributor's obligation to buy locally produced power is a reasonable balance to his somewhat exclusive right to distribute and sell it.
old europe wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Again, if we have abundant, cheap energy we can solve all the other problems, environmental, social and otherwise. If we don't have that, we won't be able to do anything.
Mhm. Thanks for the empty rhetoric, george...
I profoundly disagree. You are taking a cheap - and empty - shot here, and there is nothing "empty" in the principal at all. This IS the essential truth in this important area of public policy - the heart of the matter. Its transcendent significance can be seen in the contrasting empty and fanciful rhetoric that so grips a too credulous (and ignorant) public that is incessantly indoctrinated with "sustainable lifestyle" nonsense.
old europe wrote:georgeob1 wrote:In the first place, I believe that most government programs designed to "stimulate" beneficial behaviors (or at least behaviors desired by often misguided politicians) usually either backfire or end up dominated by unanticipated second order effects. Worse still, they usually remain in effect long after the problem they were designed to correct goes away.
Sure. Has happened. However, I'd argue that the
inaction of a government can also have very negative effects. See, for reference, the current situation of US automakers who, for years, where developing and selling cars based on the assumption that oil would be plentiful and cheap, and that the government wouldn't do anything to artificially increase the price of gas in the future.
Compare that to European or Asian automakers who are operating in markets that forced them early on, based on heavy taxation of gas in those countries, to develop more fuel efficient cars.
I'd say that the Bush admin's "the American economy first, worries about the climate later" stance has backfired and ended up dominated by unanticipated second order effects.
Europe (and Japan) ended WWII with widespread destruction; ravaged economies; and no domestic sources of petroleum. It was no surprise that governments in need of nearly everything imposed heavy taxes on imported petroleum, among other things, simply to reduce demand for it. Conversely, the United States had built up its petroleum extraction industry to unnatural heights simply to provide fuel for the war. We had lots of cash and a surplus of production capacity. In both cases governments acted in accordance with the imperatives that existed at the time. I see no relative difference in virtue or wisdom here. While it is true that the eventual increased price of petroleum made the European/Japanese approach relatively better after 1975, the truth is the switch to higher efficiency vehicles is a simple transformation. Our consuming public and manufacturere had little trouble making the change as the incentives to do so increased. What is usually left out of this story is the immense pleasure accumulated (while it was possible) in operating those big, overpowered American cars with all that cheap fuel. The reversals suffered by our automobile manufacturers had much more to do with the declining quality of their products and the sclerotic effects of an over unionized workforce - and very little to do with our tax policy on gasoline.
I certainly would agree that we erred in getting into WWI. Had we avoided that, there likely would have been no WWII at all. We would then still have our petroleum and you would still have your Kaiser. :wink:
I can't think of ANY adverse effects on us of the Bush Administration's emphasis on economic issues rather than the AGW psychosis that has so infected others. What backfire? What second order effects? We certainly do face a number of basic contradictions in our energy policies; we have our share of idiotic, but popular, misconceptions; and we have a number of tough but important choices ahead of us. However, is the situation any different (or better) in Germany? You have your nuclear power issue as well, (and if you do choose to shut doen your nuclear establishment, you will have to choose between much more very expensive wind power and much greater dependence on expensive imports from your historical 'friends' in Russia). Sounds very analogous to the issues we face. (Is kissing up to Putin really any different than kissing up to the Saudis?)
The only real difference is that we weren't hypocritical (or foolish) enough to sign the Kyoto treaty.
old europe wrote:georgeob1 wrote:There is ample evidence around us all that points to the gathering interest and investment in renewable sources of energy and the application of more energy efficient ways to maintain modern lifestyles and economies. These (here at least) are largely the result of natural market forces - certainly nothing our government has done.
Certainly, but I don't think the situation is very different in Europe. The development in the sector of renewable energy was and is largely driven by market forces. However, the market is indirectly influenced by government action - taxation of gas on the one hand, incentives to invest into renewables on the other hand.
I think there are profound differences. European governments signed up to the AGW hysteria - though I will concede their hypocrtitical lack of enforcement of the absurd Kyoto agreement reflects a certain degree of realism on their parts. Still the European cap and trade system for emission credits is distorting natural markets. (Sadly we appear to be ready to adapt something like this as well.)
old europe wrote:I don't think that an entirely free, unregulated market is the best way to get things done in a short amount of time. Just as you're (rightfully) not willing to completely rely on the government, I think it's rather obvious that there's no reason to blindly trust the free market, either. A look at the current situation of the "free market" should be enough to reach that conclusion...
georgeob1 wrote:I oppose a carbon tax (or any of the largely equivalent emissions rights trading schemes) simply because they - in my view - will suppress beneficial economic activity more effectively than they will accelerate a transformation process that is already underway and doesn't require them.
I don't understand. Are you using the term "carbon tax" as a synonym for a cap-and-trade plan? Well, yeah, those haven't been too effective so far.
That's different from old-style taxes, though. Specifically taxing behaviour that is undesirable (even though I guess you take issue with the "carbon" part of any kind of carbon tax), and subsidizing/giving tax breaks for behaviour that is desirable.
And yes, the trick is in deciding what we deem desirable or undesirable.
We appear to agree conceptually. Though I suspect we would draw the line between desirable and undesirable government intervention in different places.
Yes, I do view a "cap-and-trade" plan for carbon credits as merely a flexible form of carbon tax.
old europe wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Moreover, I am concerned about the irrational contradictions that infect the political actors involved in the process here. Opposition to nuclear power (even that carefully hidden behind unattainable preconditions, such as Obama's) is a completely irrational component of a strategy that would impose the heavy hand of government to punish the current pillars of our economy, leaving us only the "alternative" fantasies so earnestly embraced by people who are largely illiterate when it comes to the engineering and scientific realities involved.
That's some heavy rhetoric again.
I'll have to admit that I don't come down in favour of nuclear energy. However, I can see the point where it might be necessary as a technology to bridge the gap between current technologies and a situation where we could rely more effectively on renewables.
I see that point of view reflected in Obama's energy plan and I'm quite happy with that. It's not as radical as Edward's stance on nuclear power, it acknowledges the value nuclear power has, but also addresses the issues.
For me, the whole debate about Yucca Mountain doesn't seem to be as central as it seems to be in the States. That's probably due to the long history of that particular project, and also a clear case of "not in my backyard".
I do understand those concerns, and I admit that the same reasons are the basis for my tentative opposition to nuclear power.
America has the luxury of building these facilities in areas that are, essentially, nobody's immediate backyard. I'd assume that opposition would just for that reason would be much lower than in densely populated countries.
At the same time, it would seem honest to acknowledge that the billions of dollars of investments into e.g. Yucca Mountain represent, at least partly, a direct subsidy of nuclear power (the other part being paid for by those who would store nuclear waste in those facilities and therefore, ultimately, by the consumer).
The rhetoric WAS a bit heavy - but very good, even eloquent.
We have very different views of nuclear power. I have a good deal of direct experience with it and even directly oversaw the operation of a very large nuclear powerplant for several years. The tehnology is proven, safe and very reliable. Nuclear power generation involves relatively very simple and easily solved environmental and waste management issues compared to its alternatives (you might want to study, for example, some of the environmental issues attendant to the eventual destruction and removal of a dam that has provided a source for large-scale hydroelectrical power for a few decades -- a power source that is often thought of as "free" and without adverse environmental effects).
Actually most of our 100 nuclear facilities are east of the Mississippi and in largely urban areas. Their safety & environmental records are far better than those of conventional fosssil fuel fired plants.
Nuclear power is indeed a necessary technology, and necessary in bridging a very likely long gap between it and feasible alternatives. It is particularly advantageous for the United States. We have the technology; the fuel processing capabilities; and the fuel - all in ample quantities. New and evolving reactor designs promise up to threefold increases in the power yield of available fuels and a proportionate reduction in the radioactive waste so generated.
The NIMBY issue is a real problem, however the prospect of increased cost for alternatives has already significantly altered public attitudes in this and other areas.
Our development of nuclear technology was indeed a subsidy of a kind for the industry - a necessity of war. However the development of the Yucca Mountan repository was not such a subsidy. It was paid for by a tax imposed on nuclear power generators. In addition these generators are required to fund the eventual destruction and cleanup of the plant sites out of current operating expenses - huge capital funds allready exist for each plant. No such requirement exists for any comparable power or manufacturing facility.
Even with these costs included in current rates, nuclear power is still cheaper than so-called "renewables" by factors of 2 or 3, and even cheaper than coal by about 25%. A factor of huge economic significance.
Finally, let me wind up this rather windy post by saying I appreciate the quality of your arguments, even when I don't agree with your conclusions. You focus on facts and real issues, and you don't indulge in useless prejudgements or rancor. Occasionally, when we disagree, you are even right !
