Nicely balanced comment. The bottom line is that no country in the world do we have in place a policy that discourages net CO2 emissions at minimum cost (dead eight loss). The present COP process is not working.
There is a conceptually easy policy, tax net emissions [in practice have an excise tax on first sale of fossil fuel and on felling of timber in proportion to the carbon content], but politicians are reluctant to enact this policy, presumably because of popular opposition. This is understandable for politicians; what is less understandable is that "environmentalists" are not strong advocates of the policy.
Why not let the market drive the process, instead of the government? Transition gradually, instead of abruptly. It might take longer, but there is no rush (in my opinion; arguable, I'm sure.)
Both govt and free market are probably necessary but yeah, our latest subsidies have been pushing EVs that only a niche market can or wants to buy. When the free market comes up with the theorized 900 mile range solid state battery with charge times like filling up on gas and much greater longevity (plus being made with cheaper, widely available materials), that will be when folks will want an EV. We'll have to be ready for that transition though by starting yesterday on upgrading the grid to handle it.
The best way to do that is the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend. The problem though is that such Free Market methods only work if you remove the vast preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to politically approved favorites wind, solar, hydrogen, battery storage, and biomass electricity production. That so terribly distorts the market that such methods like the CF&D are fruitless.
It’s worth noting that, while we don’t have and may never have a rational, revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend + border adjustment, our relatively more stringent environmental regulations compared to China, India, and most rapidly industrializing countries amounts to an indirect domestic carbon tax and a SUBSIDY for imported, carbon-intensive materials and products consumed in the US without regard to their global impacts on pollutants like PM2.5 that are directly harmful to health. Based on a 2017 study published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21712) in 2007 such consumption accounted for ~ 100,000 deaths in 2007 OUTSIDE the US, ~ half of these in China. Regulatory impact analyses required by US clean air law does not account for these offshored impacts. Additionally, the revenue flows from both trade in industrial goods and in energy due to our domestic policies have had other harmful externalities on global security, helping to fund wars of aggression and industrial capacity that underpins weapons production by autocratic regimes. US clean air and other environmental improvements have produced huge health and welfare gains at home. But in a globalized economy with threats from both climate change and war increasing, we need to update how we “think globally and act locally” — even when “locally” means nationally.
I've been following the energy data published by Texas' ERCOT, and it appears that their average electrical power produced from fossil (coal + gas in their case) has been growing by 1300+ MWe per year. The solar contribution is smallish but growing and wind, though bigger in absolute terms, hasn't grown for almost three years. Nuclear is holding at a little under 5000 MWe, by intent.
The maximum draw for ERCOT from everything is in the 80,000 MWe range.
I do find this Article/analysis mostly towards today's realities. The World is not yet gaining any advantages on the purse against higher proportions of green house gases. Good analysis, Well said and thoughtfully consttucted...
The article blames consumption increases on "-- all the manufactured goods that consume energy (cars and trucks, refrigerators, water pumps, cell phones, etc.)."
What about energy consumed in bitcoin mining, Artificial Intelligence, etc. ?
What about energy wasted in producing short life cycle products, i.e. throw-away junk, rather than products that are maintainable and repairable?
What about energy wasted from moving production overseas, then packaging and shipping product back to consumers?
We need to take an objective look at the policies and activities that drive energy consumption rather than simply blaming "cars, trucks, refrigerators, water pumps and cell phones".
Glaring omission: Energy wasted on idiotic regime change wars, 10's of $trillions down the sewer, 10's of millions dead, vast amounts of infrastructure laid waste, vast fossil fuels & materials destroyed, vast pollution, including blowing up pipelines releasing horrendous amounts of GHG gases. And so far the USSA has lost every war, at least it always succeeds in making things worse not better.
Add idiotic agrofuels they keep pushing, 40% of US corn crop. That consume more fossil fuels than they replace. As well as waste valuable farmland that can produce food for people not automobiles.
And of course the vast resources thrown into energy & materials hogs = wind, solar, energy storage batteries & hydrogen. With an abysmal EROI.
And then there was ~40 $trillion thrown down the sewer on the nutty Covid response, at total failure, a total waste, and all because of insane & unrestrained bioweapons development under the guise of "protecting human health". The biggest lie every told. And instead of recognizing the complete and total failure and making corrections accordingly, they are just doubling down, determined to do the same, but much worse.
I agree with Mr. Hutchesen -- but also wonder -- what will it take for any of you guys wo write about what has been US invented / verified by a US professional laboratory series of tests / and US Patented.
Are you guys at Breakthrough just one trick ponies -- just shoveling the s... that everyone knows and can rad about almost everywhere?
The world needs to replace the now clearly impossible goal of net zero by 2050. Should it be net zero by 2075? Even if that’s also a bit of a stretch at least it puts the discussion on a more reasonable footing than zero emissions in 25 years.
Nicely balanced comment. The bottom line is that no country in the world do we have in place a policy that discourages net CO2 emissions at minimum cost (dead eight loss). The present COP process is not working.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting
There is a conceptually easy policy, tax net emissions [in practice have an excise tax on first sale of fossil fuel and on felling of timber in proportion to the carbon content], but politicians are reluctant to enact this policy, presumably because of popular opposition. This is understandable for politicians; what is less understandable is that "environmentalists" are not strong advocates of the policy.
Why not let the market drive the process, instead of the government? Transition gradually, instead of abruptly. It might take longer, but there is no rush (in my opinion; arguable, I'm sure.)
Both govt and free market are probably necessary but yeah, our latest subsidies have been pushing EVs that only a niche market can or wants to buy. When the free market comes up with the theorized 900 mile range solid state battery with charge times like filling up on gas and much greater longevity (plus being made with cheaper, widely available materials), that will be when folks will want an EV. We'll have to be ready for that transition though by starting yesterday on upgrading the grid to handle it.
The best way to do that is the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend. The problem though is that such Free Market methods only work if you remove the vast preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to politically approved favorites wind, solar, hydrogen, battery storage, and biomass electricity production. That so terribly distorts the market that such methods like the CF&D are fruitless.
It’s worth noting that, while we don’t have and may never have a rational, revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend + border adjustment, our relatively more stringent environmental regulations compared to China, India, and most rapidly industrializing countries amounts to an indirect domestic carbon tax and a SUBSIDY for imported, carbon-intensive materials and products consumed in the US without regard to their global impacts on pollutants like PM2.5 that are directly harmful to health. Based on a 2017 study published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21712) in 2007 such consumption accounted for ~ 100,000 deaths in 2007 OUTSIDE the US, ~ half of these in China. Regulatory impact analyses required by US clean air law does not account for these offshored impacts. Additionally, the revenue flows from both trade in industrial goods and in energy due to our domestic policies have had other harmful externalities on global security, helping to fund wars of aggression and industrial capacity that underpins weapons production by autocratic regimes. US clean air and other environmental improvements have produced huge health and welfare gains at home. But in a globalized economy with threats from both climate change and war increasing, we need to update how we “think globally and act locally” — even when “locally” means nationally.
Very true. A rational emissions pricing system MUST include similar fees on the embodied carbon of imports, including that caused by transportation.
Export export export. Love it! That is what made the US so rich in the first place and it is high time we get back to it.
I've been following the energy data published by Texas' ERCOT, and it appears that their average electrical power produced from fossil (coal + gas in their case) has been growing by 1300+ MWe per year. The solar contribution is smallish but growing and wind, though bigger in absolute terms, hasn't grown for almost three years. Nuclear is holding at a little under 5000 MWe, by intent.
The maximum draw for ERCOT from everything is in the 80,000 MWe range.
Matt, great well researched article. When will the policy people wake up to the reality of the transition and just let the market work?
I do find this Article/analysis mostly towards today's realities. The World is not yet gaining any advantages on the purse against higher proportions of green house gases. Good analysis, Well said and thoughtfully consttucted...
The article blames consumption increases on "-- all the manufactured goods that consume energy (cars and trucks, refrigerators, water pumps, cell phones, etc.)."
What about energy consumed in bitcoin mining, Artificial Intelligence, etc. ?
What about energy wasted in producing short life cycle products, i.e. throw-away junk, rather than products that are maintainable and repairable?
What about energy wasted from moving production overseas, then packaging and shipping product back to consumers?
We need to take an objective look at the policies and activities that drive energy consumption rather than simply blaming "cars, trucks, refrigerators, water pumps and cell phones".
Glaring omission: Energy wasted on idiotic regime change wars, 10's of $trillions down the sewer, 10's of millions dead, vast amounts of infrastructure laid waste, vast fossil fuels & materials destroyed, vast pollution, including blowing up pipelines releasing horrendous amounts of GHG gases. And so far the USSA has lost every war, at least it always succeeds in making things worse not better.
Add idiotic agrofuels they keep pushing, 40% of US corn crop. That consume more fossil fuels than they replace. As well as waste valuable farmland that can produce food for people not automobiles.
And of course the vast resources thrown into energy & materials hogs = wind, solar, energy storage batteries & hydrogen. With an abysmal EROI.
And then there was ~40 $trillion thrown down the sewer on the nutty Covid response, at total failure, a total waste, and all because of insane & unrestrained bioweapons development under the guise of "protecting human health". The biggest lie every told. And instead of recognizing the complete and total failure and making corrections accordingly, they are just doubling down, determined to do the same, but much worse.
Our World is run by Psychopathic criminals.
I agree with Mr. Hutchesen -- but also wonder -- what will it take for any of you guys wo write about what has been US invented / verified by a US professional laboratory series of tests / and US Patented.
Are you guys at Breakthrough just one trick ponies -- just shoveling the s... that everyone knows and can rad about almost everywhere?
Lots of facts - but nothing new.
The world needs to replace the now clearly impossible goal of net zero by 2050. Should it be net zero by 2075? Even if that’s also a bit of a stretch at least it puts the discussion on a more reasonable footing than zero emissions in 25 years.