That's how Washington state's governor, Chris Gregoire, describes her proposals to reduce greenhouse gases.
By acting now, we will declare our energy independence and create job growth that the world will envy. When this recession ends, Washington must be ready to take new, bold steps to address climate change. We can't let fear drive us into inaction that we and future generations will regret.
President Obama is already working with Congress to develop a national cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases — a most effective and efficient way to reduce harmful emissions.
By enacting a strong bill now, Washington will be positioned to influence the national discussion on climate change, and protect our state's vital interests — which include our natural resources, our businesses and jobs.
Last year, Washingtonians sent $16 billion overseas to buy fossil fuels. Instead, we can invest those dollars in Washington jobs, clean energy, businesses and families. Every $1 billion that Washington residents spend here generates 6,300 jobs.
You can search her entire column without finding a single mention of the costs for her proposals.
(Washington taxpayers, who have watched her bring the state close to bankruptcy, may not be surprised that Gregoire has nothing to say, at least nothing she wants to say publicly, about costs.)
She does mention costs indirectly, when she backs a cap-and-trade program. Any such program that actually reduced greenhouse gases would have to do so by raising energy prices, imposing a heavy tax on all of us. The tax would be regressive, hitting the poor, especially the rural poor, harder than the rich, especially the urban rich. (For some examples of how higher energy prices hit the rural poor hard, see this New York Times article.)
Avoiding, except in that indirect way, any mention of costs is dishonest, because Gregoire is not telling us the whole truth. (Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that she is right about the benefits.) I can't see into her mind, so I don't know why she omitted costs. It may be that she, like many other politicians, just wants to sell a program, and so prefers to avoid the negatives. But it may also be that she has never really thought about the fundamental question: Are the benefits from her proposals greater than the costs?
Bjorn Lomborg agrees with Gregoire that greenhouse gases will have many negative effects. But he is willing, unlike the governor, to examine the costs of proposals like hers, openly. And when he does, he comes to a very unfashionable conclusion:
If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
For the sake of Governor Gregoire, I will add this point: An investment that returns 30 cents for each dollar spent is a bad investment.
Lomborg favors (as do I, though I disagree with him on other matters) more research instead of expensive efforts to cut emissions.
Lomborg may be wrong in his analysis. He is almost certainly wrong in his exact numbers, simply because both costs and benefits are so hard to estimate. But he is right to ask that fundamental question, and Gregoire wrong to avoid it. (So wrong, in my humble opinion, that the Seattle Times should not have published her op-ed, at least not without a rejoinder on the same page.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(As usual when I mention global warming, I urge you to read my disclaimer, if you have not already done so.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 27, 2009 03:00 PM | Email ThisI have a relative who is 85 years old. He's lived through the majority of the "greenhouse gas growth." He lives on the water here in the Sound. He notes that the water level hasn't changed in any perceptible way in his entire lifetime. He has lived in the same place his whole lifetime, and seen the water level there year after year. No change. Scientists might note that there has been a change of a few millimeters, but for sake of crisis argument, that is no change.
It's wholly ludicrous and against all common sense for anyone to believe that after 85 years of virtually no change, that suddenly we are going to see a 2 meter level rise over the next 100 years. Gore made even more dire predictions, and while the IPCC has scaled back on such fear mongering rhetoric, even their upper bounds predictions are hotly contested by many scientists. And those upper bounds of a few inches still do not constitute any crisis. So a few might have to build a slightly higher sea wall over the course of 100 years. This is not called crisis, it's called adaptation. Humans are more than capable of responding to slow geologic changes of the course of one or more lifetimes.
Many more people will be dislocated by earthquakes, diseases, fires, river floods and mudslides, but we don't talk about needing massive cap and trade legislation for those potential disasters.
There is no crisis. Anyone can plainly see it. And the imposition of massive price raising legislation is going to leave a very helpful mark on the electorate when it comes time to vote.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 04:14 PMThat is exactly what tax and trade is all about. Tax the energy producers who in turn add it to the price.
But the 'journalists' apparently think that the only thing intelligent folks need be concerned about is how the left is to acquire power, and how it might then be exercised. The dreamy European socialist model is apparently so attractive to them that no other concerns, re long-term income and expenses in the general economy, require addressing.
With themselves closer to the political power centers than the people who simply exist to provide taxes, they must assume future sinecures for themselves, such as have been proposed before Congress recently after some drum-beating in the op-eds. After all, citizens of a democracy 'need' such information as only trained journalists can provide.
But then, half the population has every right to stand up and demand to know why that training is so myopic, one-sided and innumerate.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 27, 2009 06:57 PMGregoire, like so many others, is living in a fantasy land if they expect this to come true. The source of all this idiocy is the idea that government must control our "energy policy". The government is incapable of doing this and neither is any single "Energy Czar" given dictatorial power and neither are any quasi-governmental entities. The only thing they will accomplish is to screw up the free market distribution of energy in all its multiple forms. Nothing is more efficient than the free market system. If Obama, Gregoire and all their idiot advisors were really interested in energy efficiency and "creating job growth the world would envy" they would drop all attempts to control energy markets and open the gates to the natural resources that have been off limits for decades.
But, of course, energy independence, or more properly, efficient energy distribution is not really their goal. Their goal is to milk the global warming scam for all that it is worth to amass political power. Their naked power lust is so evident it could not be mistaken for a rational concern about something as trivial as minor temperature variations from decade to decade. Observe the vast edifice of state power, with its corrupt, capricious and cruel regulations, that Obama is proposing to build that will ensnare each and every one of us in its web. This huge hive of absolute power has a magnetic attraction for third rate politicians like Gregoire and her ilk.
Yeah Al, sure it will.
PS.. hey buddy, could you turn off your lights when your NOT home!
jezzzz
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 28, 2009 06:15 AMYeah, we can all walk 20 miles to work, return to farming with horses and sit and shiver around a single wind-generated light bulb. Go to hell, Queenie.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 28, 2009 07:25 AMAs a scientist, I have examined the data and decided to conserve and reduce emissions resulting from the day to day operations of my household. I believe in market-based solutions and so I pay into the "Green Up" program as described below:
"Through the Green Up program, you can choose to purchase renewable power generated from sources such as the Stateline Wind Project in Eastern Washington for 25%, 50% or 100% of your power. The cost is $3, $6 or $12 per month added to your bill."
(https://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/greenupR.asp)
We are at the 100% level. I think of this as a non-deductible charitable donation that will increase demand for renewable power--making it more desirable to invest in the infrastructure of such, and ultimately bringing the cost to future consumers down.
The answer to my question will give some insight into the motivation behind cap-and-trade and other government control of the energy market.
My question is, will I be immune to seeing my SPL bill increase since all of my residential power is already "green"? (this is a rhetorical question at the moment)
Household data:
In 2008 we paid $1105 to SCL, 13% of which went towards our green power subsidy. The percentage went up from 2007 because we have reduced overall power consumption through replacing dated appliances/light fixtures, etc. We use electric resistance heat exclusively, so that is why the bill may seem high to some.
My guess is that the distrotion to the energy market that would be caused by government intervention would cause my neighbor who does not buy any "green power" to pay significantly more than +13% of his cureent bill.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Dantzler on April 28, 2009 07:54 AM@15 I don't know offhand, but I believe they buy "credits" from other utilities to make up the discrepancy. My goal is to create "demand" so that capitol investment in additional renewable energy production becomes more attractive.
I'll try to dig up an annual report for SCL to dig into their sources. A lot is hydro, but expansion there is limited for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Dantzler on April 28, 2009 08:23 AMThe problem is that wind and solar are intermittent power sources. The way our grid works now, massive swings in supply or demand cannot be tolerated. This is why after a major power outage, it takes time to bring the grid back. Load areas have to be switched on one at a time as generation comes on line. This is a careful balancing act. Often you hear talk of the so called "smart grid." The idea is that by allowing more real time control of the grid, there can be more tolerance to load and supply going on and offline. And to some extend this is true. But replacing much of the current switching technology and control systems to make a smart grid, is very expensive. And that's on top of building solar and wind farms that have to be roughly 4x larger than conventional baseload power to deliver the same output. That also means 4x the transmission lines, much larger, probably 10x the land area for said farms, and if that weren't enough, since wind and solar are intermittent there also has to be fossil fuel based backup generation facilities for deep winter and deep summer where doldrums tend to calm winds, or for at night when solar isn't receiving energy from the sun.
That's a gigantic investment, much, much, much larger than if we simply built a safe, 3G nuke plant that doesn't take up much space, can't ever have a meltdown due to passive safety in the feedback from the reaction itself, and can generate Gigawatts of power with incredible efficiency. It takes boxcars full of coal to equal the energy contained in just one truckload of nuclear fuel.
The net of all of this is that to go green, the cost is astronomical. We can't afford our current systems as the precarious balance of commerce is based on today's pricing, let alone pricing in massive new subsidies that will make power less reliable. Imagine the maintenance on thousands of miles of windmills and their associated cabling. Or on farms of solar panels that only have a lifespan of 20 years. Oh, and all of those backup natural gas plants require maintenance too. Especially when they are operated intermittently to account for wind and solar.
And all of this for a carbon bogeyman that doesn't even exist.
What we need is nuclear energy. Modern 3G and 4G designs are safe, and don't require a lot of water like the older 2G designs of the 1970s. They are efficient, compact and can generate Gigawatts of electricity from an abundant source of uranium that will last thousands of years. This is the simple, effective path to energy independence. This is what France is already doing. And now many European countries that had resisted nuclear in the past, are now signing on to new plants. Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, to name a few.
Donating even a few dollars in your SPL bill towards "Green" energy is subsidy that will prolong the time when energy will be more green, create massive new backup carbon fired plants, and increase the cost of your electricity further. And it makes you a part of the problem.
Resist the myths and fear. Happy to provide links to back all of this up.
Here is just one link from the EON Wind Report from 2005 that clearly lays out the costs and issues associated with Wind.
And note, that the largest supplier of smart grid components, turbines, gas fired plants, wind turbines, and the owner of MSNBC is GE. And as GE stock plummeted in Q$ 2008, it lobbied Congress for Green initiatives to the tune of about $46K a day. GE has a huge interest in selling wind, backup power systems, a green initiatives, so it's no wonder they run commercials ad nauseam extolling their Green Virtues. Follow the money.
PS- Britain just announced that they are closing their only operating wind turbine plant. If wind is so great, why do they need to shut it down?
Folks All Levels of Government are at war with Civilization and she sees us as nothing but serfs adrift in the failure of freedom.
Setting herself up as another failed ideologue she is attempting to join a long line of humans that have failed to fundamentally grasp that individuals left to choosing their own path is ok.
Cowards like her that can only see misery and demand utopia presented as a great boost for the economy or perverting absolute truths of the cornerstones of civilization to doom us all to darkness and death.
She is nothing more than that hauling us all on a highway to hell since fundamental travel and transportation is being eliminated by proposals like this.
She is madman caught between insanity and the lust of power convoluted with the whispers of a stolen election. She is more apt to believe that the only choice we should be left to make is to kill an infant inside its very mother.
Fundamentally this is clearly far from a dems vs. repubs argument but life versus death cultures.
My money represents my life's exchange to produce more than I need and to spend it however I choose to bring life to my land.
Unlike you , ChrisTINE, that literally threathen my life with theis proposal. You are pointing a gun at me and threathing my life!
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS MADNESS This INSANITY
The intermittent nature of wind and solar input does limit when these can be used to generate power. I have a lot of interest in storage technologies that would capture this intermittent energy and store it so that it can be used at night or in calm winds. Much work is needed here to improve the % of input retained vs wasted courtesy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This research will require considerable investment.
A more decentralized network of smaller generators interconnected and equipped for net metering could help pick up slack if a large generator went down. I agree that this infrastructure will be expensive.
I know some folks that live on Lopez and meet their electricity needs with a single wind turbine and a modest solar array. Their lifestyle needed to adjust to the reduced electricty available, but they do nicely by having a well-insulated straw bale house and efficient appliances/lighting etc. I would not be able to do this because at times I need large amounts of power. However I would rather have a small solar array to help with domestic electricity requirements, while being connected to the grid so that I can rent a welder or whatever. During low demand it would be great to get credits from SPL for excess power produced.
I have no qualms with nuclear as long as it it done safely (which I believe it can) and the waste is dealt with more responisbly than Hanfords has been. Future electricity needs will necessarily need to be diverse and cannot all come from wind and solar. Hydro and nuclear will likely be the heavy lifters if we can convince people that nuclear is much safer in today's world.
Government subsidies bother me because they distort markets and they are taken by force from the taxpayer. I do value a clean environment and would also like to see America less dependent on foreign oil. I am trying to further those goals by contributing to the green power program. Your comment that I am part of the problem I interpret as being because I am helping cause a proliferation of solar and wind power, and that they have problems, and will require gas or coal powered backup. (As an avid birder and admirer of bats, the negative impacts of wind turbines are not lost on me). I would argue at least that increased demand for solar power does drive development of cheaper, more efficient, and durable technologies. To that end I also directly invest in some companies working towards these goals (and hopefully profit).
You have a point. Suppose I wish to stimulate investment in storage technologies and yes, even clean, safe nuclear. The mechanism for that is not as apparent to me. Do you have any suggestions? Saving the money instead to invest in a small solar array that could be net metered would also appeal to me.
Posted by: Dantzler on April 28, 2009 11:28 AMJeff B. I'd like to correspond with you off the board, but your email is not valid. Mine is. Would you drop me a line? Cheers--Jeff D.
Posted by: Dantzler on April 28, 2009 11:34 AMNuclear Energy is the way to go...Period! After all, it is the basic foundation of what powers the Universe. Why not go to the prime source for your energy? You can play games with the Solar and Wind but, the rest of us shouldn't be forced to subsidize it with higher utility bills and a less than satisfactory electrical grid to depend on. You want to be Dumb, Costly, and Inefficient....Do it on your own DIME!
Flying my flag at half mast today....
Posted by: hellpig on April 28, 2009 01:21 PMWhat happens when the nuke plant or power line goes down? A more diversified and decentralized grid may allow albiet limited power to be distributed in times of a disruption caused by a storm, etc.
My example of the off the grid house on Lopez was to illustrate that it can be done. The owner is a successful ex-CEO and he really didn't have to make too many lifestyle changes. Also, the house is a beautiful example alternative construction using straw bales and timber framing--hardly a mud hut. Most importantly it was by his own free choice.
Finally, no where in ANY of my posts did I suggest that I wanted to force anything on any one. I am a strange beast in that I am a Libertarian who cares about the environment and I am looking for ways that I can use my buying power (limited as it may be) to push the market in a direction where the goods produced and the means to produce them, transport them, etc. have less of a negative impact (externality if you will) on the environment that we all live in. By the same logic I don't litter on other people's property or in the back country.
So instead of calling me dumb, costly, and ineffiecient, why not offer something constructive to the discussion?
The point I wanted to make in my first post is that I supposedly have 100% green power and therefore shouldn't have to pay "carbon tax" on my residential electricity consumption. In a way the market has said that the cost of me "going green" is an additional ~15 % of what I would otherwise pay. I propose that under the planned "cap and trade" or whatever plan they plan to force on us will result in a much bigger cost increase than 15% -- Leading me to believe that either I'm getting a deal on my "green power" now or that the market distortion brought about by government interference in energy markets will result in a higher cost than necessary. Do not in any way construe my comments as supporting "cap and trade" or similar because I oppose it strongly.
And Jeff B. I greatly enjoy reading your posts here.
The horrible economic circumstances, which Nobama and the liberals is making much worse, could actually help to stop many of the disasters (eg. Cap and Tax) mentioned. And the economy can be eventually fixed by getting rid of many of the current crop of politicians.
Posted by: ajday on April 28, 2009 03:42 PMThey never fail to let you down while they do in your perceived enemies clearing the land of life.
Babies are never the problem.
A Can of gas is not the problem.
A Bible is not the problem.
Carbon is not the problem.
Morality is not a problem.
This windmilling by all level of government at plastic bags, cars, thermostats, marriage, Wal-Mart, gas, God, whites makin' it right, banker's bonuses, health care, talk radio, private education, land ownership, etc are nothing but fundamental attacks on civilization.
It is OBSCENE to lead someone to believe you can and will solve their problems and that you CARE by saying you will solve what you have scared them into believing by destroying civilization.
ChrisTINE you are cruel telling a scared man he can sleep comfortably knowing that gas will be banned. You are mean leading a woman to think she can still have electricity from a windmill while saving her from her neighbor's car!
You are viscous and violently attacking us all with your solutions!
I realize that oath of office feels funny coming out. See my fellow man that paper we agree to play by is really worthless in the obvious face of what has happened in the last 3 months.
Thank you to OGODMA for allowing me to post.
I would like to see the process of producing cheaper/cleaner power accellerated without government interference. I have no problem with nuclear power, but nuclear is not feasible everywhere. I would like to encourage development and refinement of other methods of producing power. Hell, I would also support building a GW-scale nuclear plant in WA if it replaced an older coal fired plant.
Solar and wind are options, but so are fuel cells, cogeneration, geothermal, and microturbines for example. Why should we not want to innovate here? For example solar energy prices have decreased 4%/yr for the last 15 years driven by increasing efficiencies and manufacturing economies of scale. I'm not suggesting it is THE answer, but it can be ONE answer.
If I owned property in rural Washington and it cost me $25,000 to have power run to my property, I might think about alternative means of generating power. Even if I did go with the grid, I would still be subject to blackouts such as happened a few winters ago where some unfortunate folks were out of power for over a week. What plants picked up the slack then?
@27 Daniel your third paragraph is spot on - we agree on that point.
The thread drifted towards me brainstorming how individuals can influence the future of energy in America without the heavy hand of government. Jeff B. has inspired me to reexamine my voluntary subsidy to the green power program with SPL. My challenge for you to offer something constructive: What should I do with those dollars if I want to stimulate reliable, cheap, clean power?
What should you do with any dollars to stimulate reliable cheap, clean power? Aside from the sources already developed, you would have to apply a new source of energy not yet utilized, to turn the turbines. It would be up to you to invent such a system. As for right now, Nuclear is the best source to power a Nation....Ask France, who is not only getting 80 percent of it's electrical power from Nuclear, it is also, selling that power to other countries. France has the cheapest electrical power in all of Europe.
It's either acid or China has planted politicans in our country with incredible success.
Posted by: BananaLand on April 29, 2009 11:43 AMBut as Jim notes, Nuclear is feasible almost everywhere. Newer pebble bed designs do not require the enormous water cooling of the old prototypical Trojan style 2G reactors sited near big rivers. And there are even better advances planned for 4G reactors. The reaction is limited by the design such that overheating actually produces a negative feedback which prevents a supercriticality. Further, these VHTGR designs use much less dangerous fuel, and can be refueled in situ, which drastically lowers maintenance and shutdown costs. And they are designed to be smaller allowing for greater distribution in the grid, which makes the grid stronger.
As for power storage, it's not and expanding reality but a disappearing one. Thanks to insane environmentalism here in the Cascades, there are bills to destroy existing hydroelectric capacity. This is a double whammy to sensible electricity generation, because aside from Nuclear, hydroelectric energy is very clean, and abundant in areas like ours where there is a considerable mountain range. And, second, the greatest potential for grid power storage is in higher elevation reservoirs above existing dams where pumping can absorb the extra electricity produced on the grid at any given moment. Also there is dam uprating whereby larger and smaller flows can be released as needed to match grid load. Anyone who has rafted the American river upstream from Sacramento will be familiar with these daily large releases that provide great "fast water" for rafts and kayaks. Similar to pumping, this allows the reservoir to respond to the load as needed.
What is so incredibly ironic and amazingly, mind-blowingly ignorant about today's environmentalist policy is that Wind and Solar depend on Hydro and other forms of grid storage to exist at all. This is because as I noted far above, wind and solar are not dispatchable, they have to give to the grid when they can, because quite often they can't. So to fulfill the false promise of wind and solar, we need the best possible grid storage, and that is Hydro. Geographies like our region are the special combination of wind tunnel and high mountains with hydro producing reservoirs than could actually make the combination work, at least regionally. But, the trouble is the INSANE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT TO BLOW UP THE DAMS. They want to return the land to its "natural" state because humans are not natural, right?
And their ignorant thinking has made its way to Olympia and Salem.
So the net is, that they don't want Hydro, which destroys the capability of wind and solar. And they don't want nuclear, because they are still living in the 1970s and afraid of a technology that largely powers many other countries. And thus the only thing left is coal and natural gas. Coal doesn't stand a chance here due to its heavy use in other parts of the country and the negative perception it has as being dirty. So that leaves us with the giant carbon footprint of burning natural gas.
It's ridiculous because we could have far, far cheaper, and much cleaner power with nuclear. But the politicians are riding the crazed blow up the dams mindset from the tree-huggers, even though ultimately that will lead to a LESS green outcome. Some tree-huggers are waking up to this reality, and advocating nuclear, but most are being shouted down by the handoff this gives for cap and trade and more command control from Olympia.
Stuff like this should be left to engineers who know how to balance complex systems with multiple competing variables. Trade-off is the name of the game in engineering. Instead, we get politicians, who know absolutely nothing about technology, and who want to play games with energy simply to further their own power.
The main thing that separates us from Africans burning wood in their huts, is abundant energy. Thanks to Progressives, we will have less energy, dirtier energy, and at a much higher cost which hits the poor the hardest.
The silver lining is that such extreme overreach will be met, and soon, with the brick wall of reality. When there are power shortages, fuel shortages, healthcare lines, double-digit stagflation, higher costs for all goods, and massive unemployment, the electorate will wake up and realize that this was all brought to them courtesy of Progressive Democrats.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2009 11:46 PMI agree that 3G+ nuclear and hydro would be the best option for the main electricity requirements of WA. It boggles my mind as well the counterproductiveness of short sighted environmentalists. An example that comes to mind is the ecoterrorists burning down the UW horticultural lab because scary "genetic engineering" was being done there. In fact the research involved using fast growing poplar trees to absorb and sequester pollutants present in the soil.
I take no offense at your desire not to communicate outside of this forum as I understand being busy. Living in Seattle is as you might expect, a wasteland with regard to non-progressive points of view. Your insightful posts gave me the urge to buy you a beer sometime and talk further because I suspect I could learn a lot from you. I'll look forward to your contributions here. Cheers--Jeff D.
Posted by: Dantzler on April 30, 2009 01:58 PMThese facilities exist only because of state and federal mandates, subsidies, and tax preferences offered to investors. The government requires local utility companies to purchase the power generated by them at the extremely inflated prices required to cover their costs and to provide their investors with a return on their investment. That higher price is calculated into the utility companies' ratebases, so that all of the utilities' customers pay an inflated price for power, whether or not they purchase "green" power.
The truth is that investments in these highly-subsidized generating facilities are not merely misallocated.
They are a complete waste.
Their existence reduces not at all, because of their intermittent output, required investments in base load generating capacity. In addition, large-scale base load generators are necessarily operated at reduced efficiency because of the necessity for unplanned output increases and reductions to balance load on the net, which now requires more sophisticated and expensive controls and more careful monitoring.
The capital invested in them would be better deployed in any private-sector profit-making enterprise, resulting in increased employment and wealth for the economy as a whole.
The government never makes the right bet because it always attempts to achieve political goals by economic means.
Posted by: Davesix on May 1, 2009 11:48 AM@40 Your last paragraph gets back to my first post. If I were paying +15% on my bill to feel good (since that may be in effect all green power customers are buying), how much do you want to bet that the cap-and-trade tax will end up costing MORE than that extra 15%?
This has been an interesting discussion.
Posted by: Dantzler on May 1, 2009 01:11 PM