« you mean every phone in this country is tapped? | SFalex's Blog | Two thoughts on the unfolding Clinton campaign »

the energy economists were wrong


I distinctly remember that a huge portion of the debate around the Kyoto pact was that the US economy would be seriously harmed by the imposition of a carbon tax to fund energy research and improve efficiency. The US's experience of the past several years shows that those economists were wrong. The only thing we have to show for their mistake is lost time and a slew of fat and happy energy execs and shareholders

A major argument used during any debate about global warming is that the shock of a energy price hike would do significant damage to the economy. During the Kyoto debate and even the tepid McCain-Lieberman bill economists - usually on the dole of the oil companies and their allies - trotted out all sorts of macro-economic models that purported to show that the world's largest economy simply couldn’t handle any effort to limit carbon emissions. While those arguments weren't very strong IMO, they were provided legislators with the cover they needed to sell out future generations.

It turns out the economists were wrong. And we have nothing to show for it.

In looking at recent energy trends I was struck by the steepness of the rise in oil/energy prices since the US invasion of Iraq. I was similarly struck by the fact that despite this massive price shock the economy seems to be humming right along.

While there are real concerns about savings and the distribution of wealth, productivity, corporate profits, and the stock market are all rising. All of this has occurred despite the fact that the price of oil has more than doubled in the space of just a few years.

With this in mind, I pose everyone a 'what if'. What if say a quarter of the windfall secured by the energy companies had instead been a tax that was directed at renewable energy R&D? What if another quarter of that windfall had gone into retrofitting the homes and businesses of Americans to make them more energy efficient? What if those retrofit dollars were used to hire tens of thousands of unemployed and underemployed Americans to do the work? What if the R&D had yielded promising results that could be developed into a thriving new industry?

There are too many what ifs to mention.

But now we are where we are. We've lost precious time. Other countries are moving ahead of us. Our planet continues to warm, daily approaching a point of no return. Countless species edge closer to extinction. Energy companies continue to plunder the earth and our pockets. Our leaders cover their ears, close their eyes, and scream at us that it’s nothing to worry about. And even it is, then there's nothing we can do about it and we should simply learn to cope.

But all is not lost. We've been provided with a natural experiment on a global scale. We now know that our economies can handle an oil price shock. We now know that the nay-saying economists were all wrong. And we now know more than ever that we need to do something about it.


4 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Yes. And it is patently stupid to assume reducing carbon means reducing economic activity.

After the oil embargo in '73 electricity usage in the US remained flat until the 80's, but industrial output was rising. This was because plants set up their own energy generation, using waste heat and other available energy. Now, one could reduce carbon by reducing fuel consumption, but finding the ignored efficiencies equals money in the bank. Also, alternate power is a one-time cost that can be measured exactly and amortized with full confidence. So energy cost can be perfectly budgeted, and since oil can only get more expensive over time, the company that replaces it will see increasing savings as time passes.

If new-source review is reinstated, plants that vent waste heat will be forced to install secondary heat exchangers in the smokestacks, and will end up crying all the way to the bank, as they reap all the free energy they used to throw away. One engineering team calculated 200 gigawatts of available smokestack energy in the US. That's roughly 200 nuclear plants, going up in smoke.

Don't get me started on solar.

user-pic

The anti-Kyoto forces use a combination of phony science and economic fear-mongering. We have to fight them on both fronts -- pointing out their scientific deceptions and pointing out how their economic doom-and-gloom forcasts from social security, medicare, medicaid, environmental protection regulations, and so forth have never come to pass. Also point out their phony calculations or the lack of any actual calculation (as the case may be).

Examples of phony calculations include counting costs and disregarding benefits (or vice versa), emphasizing second-order effects while disregarding first-order effects, combining mutually exclusive quantities, disregarding a relavent variable (eg. $50,000 cost per person as opposed to $1000 per person per year for fifty years).

But I don't think we should really blame energy economists as a whole. I think that the villainy comes from a small set of ideologically motivated economists whose knowledge of energy (and science in general) parallels the science knowledge of those who talk about "philosophy of science." (I might have the name of that last discipline wrong.)

-- Insane George W. Bush comment #394: See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction.

user-pic

With this in mind, I pose everyone a 'what if'. What if say a quarter of the windfall secured by the energy companies had instead been a tax that was directed at renewable energy R&D?

 

There are tax breaks for renewable energy now. You'd think from reading your post that nothing is being done on the renewables front. My company does environmental permitting and has lots of projects related to renewables.  There are lots of things going on right now.  We are working on $50 million worth of solar pv projects on warehouse and factory roofs in Southern California.  We permitted a large new windfarm in Kern County for LADWP and are working on transmission line infrastructure projects for Edison in that area to handle all the anticipated new generating capacity that is going in.  We are working on a mass waste conversion facility in LA.  We are also kicking off work on a 850 mW solar thermal generating project in San Bernardino County.  The cost of oil now has made these all competitive now.

 

I think you are skipping over one of the Kyoto problems, which was that the US and developed economies were supposed to limit emissions, while developing countries, including China and India, were not.  Putting us at a disadvantage.    

user-pic

The irony of Kyoto is that had we embraced the sort-of unfair goals we would be rather farther ahead now, and China would be buying (or trying to steal) our designs. They are seeing a lot of grass-roots complaints about the environment, and designs that save money do it there as well as here.

The other silly thing about ditching Kyoto was that nothing stopped us from renegotiating the standards, and we recently walked away from some other treaties, so why not Kyoto?

It really didn't impress anyone when the richest nation got snippy about fairness and we just "took the ball and went home".

Leave a comment

SFalex

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location San Francisco
  • Party When I can

Favorites

Bio

Alex is an organizer, researcher, and analyst with extensive experience in environmental, labor, economic development, and urban issues. He has organized campaigns to clean up toxic sites, shut down power plants, and reform water infrastructure policy. Alex has conducted research and authored reports for public agencies, environmental advocates, and labor organizations. He is active in shaping the redevelopment of neglected urban neighborhoods and is committed to ensuring social justice, labor rights, and accountability in urban development throughout Northern California.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address