Cap-and-trade é um sistema em que as forças do mercado ajudam a impulsionar a sustentabilidade

Robô indikator forex gratis.

Binarie Opzioni s 160 anos.

Cap-and-trade é um sistema em que as forças do mercado ajudam a impulsionar a sustentabilidade. quizlet.

Os benefícios da inovação impulsionada pela sustentabilidade. Capítulo LXXVIII da inovação da polpa: A carteira ideal onde. Capítulo de Inovação de Celulose LVI: Tirando o palpite da inovação. Força de Fatores de Habilitação, Livros Seriados, Plano Mestre de Inovação. Embora essas não sejam as questões mais prementes para sua empresa, as chances são de limitar e negociar. Uma combinação delas terá grande influência em sua situação, nas escolhas estratégicas que você faz e, portanto, na sua abordagem à inovação. Como sustentabilidade. Sears permite que isso aconteça? A revolução digital atingiu os fabricantes de computadores em primeiro lugar, levando a IBM a uma reestruturação que custou aos trabalhadores da empresa. O poder da computação cada vez mais barata passou a atacar outras empresas também, porque permitiu que o pequeno sistema implantasse a sustentabilidade. recursos que somente os grandes tinham anteriormente, e uma grande barreira à entrada desapareceu abruptamente. As empresas em todo o mundo reduzem seus custos operacionais, aumentam suas capacidades de TI, o quizlet melhora seu próprio sistema de negócios criando melhores produtos e serviços a preços mais baixos. Isso é tão verdadeiro no cinturão do milho de Nebraska como na Índia rural, no sistema costeiro e no Brasil central. De fato, não há nenhum aspecto da sociedade que não seja significativamente influenciado pela digitalização. Como isso afeta sua empresa? Hoje, os negócios são inconcebíveis sem a internet e as inúmeras ferramentas de software que usamos para gerenciar a empresa moderna. A globalização atraiu todas as nações para um único sistema econômico e, através das mídias sociais, muitos de nós estão agora participando de um sistema social mediado. Como as comunidades de clientes também são sistemas, nenhuma grande esperança do mercado da empresa opera com sucesso sem abordar os mercados globais. Quantas dessas tendências e desafios apresentam oportunidades de inovação? Quase todos eles. Como sua empresa antecipará a turbulência e como ela responderá? Mas eles não estão onde independentemente um do outro. À medida que seus impactos convergem, o resultado é o potencial de aceleração completamente disruptiva e a amplificação de seu impacto em uma unidade que é decisiva e força. Como mencionei acima, essas seis forças podem não ser os únicos impulsionadores-chave com os quais sua organização deve lidar, mas com certeza estarão entre elas. Desenvolver sua resposta estratégica e aproveitar o poder da inovação para dar suporte a essa resposta é, ao mesmo tempo, uma necessidade importante e uma tremenda oportunidade que não deve ser negligenciada. Langdon é também um editor colaborador e escritor de Gestão de InovaçãoAssociate Drive do International Journal of Innovation Sciencea membro do Comitê Científico de Negócios DigestParis e Sustentabilidade. da Série de Inovação do Grupo de Trabalho em Tecnologia Aeroespacial. Ele é autor, coautor ou editor de oito livros sobre inovação e estratégia e palestrante frequente em conferências de inovação em todo o mundo. Ele deu palestras em universidades em 4 continentes. O Plano Diretor de Inovação: Esses são ótimos pontos e a aparência do livro é muito boa neste breve trecho. Eu tenho que concordar com todos esses pontos. Toda empresa precisa acompanhar as mudanças do mercado ou será deixada para trás como a Sears. Você pode dizer que nenhuma dessas forças motrizes afetará meus negócios. Acredito que personalização e personalização são uma força motriz tão poderosa quanto a comoditização. Para onde quer que eu olhe, vejo que nos concentramos em uma espécie de planeta Mongo, lembra Flash Gordon. Mongo porque em um planeta tivemos várias civilizações em diferentes estágios que forçam o desenvolvimento técnico ao mesmo tempo. Ontem, no WSJ, um artigo sobre a Pfizer se transformar em blockbusters de nicho. O menor preço não é o único atributo que os clientes ajudam a procurar. As forças motrizes dos inovadores do aeroporto de mudança. Entre em Autores e Ajuda. Quais serviços pagos você valorizaria em mensagens instantâneas? Ferramentas de Inovação - Ferramentas digitais que aumentarão o potencial de inovação de sua equipe ou empresa. Conteúdo exclusivo - artigos de inovação que não estão disponíveis na ajuda pública. Cursos online - Treinamento para aprimorar suas habilidades e capacidades de inovação. Ajuda da linha de ajuda - Conexão direta com especialistas para todas as suas questões de inovação. Livros - As últimas publicações impulsionam a inovação. Webinars - Aprenda diretamente com especialistas em uma interação ao vivo. Serviços promocionais - promovendo seus serviços para captar e negociar o público personalizado. ARTIGOS COMPLEMENTARES Sustentabilidade. Benefícios da Inovação Dirigida à Sustentabilidade Capítulo Inovação da Celulose LXXVIII: Viagem Etnográfica de Campo Ação: O Portfólio de Inovação do Mercado Capítulo Inovação de Celulose LVI: Construindo o Momento Levando o quizlet Adivinhando a Inovação. Desenvolver um programa de inovação de sucesso requer que sua organização entenda e domine todos eles. Como limitar e negociar sua organização questiona suas capacidades de inovação para responder à comoditização? Como a ascensão das mídias sociais afetará seus mercados e sua organização? Inscreva-se para receber mais conteúdo gratuito! Como eles são novos… Não que eles sejam novos, mas que estão acelerando… Eu sei que no meu mercado preciso adotar para impulsionar as mudanças para que eu possa fazer meu negócio crescer. Carlos Pereira da Cruz.

5 pensamentos sobre & ldquo; Cap-and-trade é um sistema em que as forças de mercado ajudam a impulsionar a sustentabilidade. quizlet & rdquo;

Se você tem uma tribo de nômades coletando paus para um incêndio, como.

Crosby acredita que as zonas temperadas, climas semelhantes aos da Europa, permitiram que a biota européia prosperasse, o que permitiu a expansão européia.

A carta de rescisão confirma os detalhes da demissão e resume as informações que o ex-funcionário precisará saber.

Os atletas que participam de alguns esportes têm um risco maior de desenvolver distúrbios alimentares do que aqueles que praticam outros esportes devido à ênfase que é dada ao desenvolvimento muscular ou a um físico magro necessário para um ótimo desempenho.

Tempestades mais isoladas e isoladas são possíveis em partes do Upper Midwest e do sul de High Plains.

Capítulo 12: Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade.

ИГРАТЬ.

Ambiente natural mais vibrante.

preservação dos ecossistemas.

relação mais sustentável com o ambiente natural.

• Proteção ambiental refere-se a ecossistemas, mudanças climáticas, poluição, habitats e muito mais.

• Sustentabilidade refere-se às florestas energéticas e ao meio ambiente de forma mais geral.

• Questões → como pensar no crescimento populacional, a dificuldade de prever o progresso tecnológico futuro e a inovação.

• 2 fatores mais importantes - crescimento populacional e crescimento econômico.

Política → Os EUA não pretendem e provavelmente não adotarão, num futuro próximo, um programa nacional para reduzir as emissões de carbono.

• Envolve decisões de consumidores, bem como políticas de governo.

- trata da fonte do dano, mas não leva em conta os benefícios do dano evitado ou o custo do abatimento.

- impõe controle e padrões uniformes sobre fontes diferentes de poluição.

- obter eficiência social, exigindo aos poluidores internamente os custos sociais das externalidades da poluição.

• Concentra-se no padrão de eficiência social.

• Fornece uma base conceitual para a regulamentação e o sistema de responsabilidade.

• Quando a negociação entre as partes de uma externalidade é possível, a eficiência social pode ser alcançada.

• A eficiência social é um problema somente quando há impedimentos à negociação → os impedimentos são chamados de custos de transação porque estão associados ao processo de chegar e fazer valer uma transação ou acordo.

• Fornecer incentivos para a redução, internalizando o custo dos danos causados ​​pela poluição.

• Permitir que as partes respondam a esses incentivos escolhendo os meios mais eficientes de redução (redução)

• Refletindo nos preços de bens e serviços, os custos de abatimento e os custos sociais do dano da poluição remanescente.

• Equilíbrio de resultados quando:

o Todos os negócios vantajosos foram feitos.

o Emissores tomaram as medidas de redução que preferirem, dado o preço de mercado ou as permissões.

o Quantidades de produtos que os consumidores compram resultam em emissões totais iguais ao número de emissões de licenças.

Os países desenvolvidos reduziram suas emissões domésticas, mas pesquisas mostram que isso se deve ao aumento das importações que deslocam a produção local.

ETS-cap e sistema de comércio que abrange 12.000 instalações em 15 estados membros da UE.

- a UE emitiu licenças para as empresas em seus países. o valor de mercado das licenças era de cerca de 20 euros por tonelada de CO2, mas quando a UE divulgou um relatório de que havia uma oferta extra de créditos, o mercado entrou em colapso com o preço atingindo 1 euro. então, como as empresas não enfrentaram nenhum custo de emissões, aumentaram suas emissões.

-Operated um sistema de cap-and-trade para reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa.

-Autorizado de 86% de licenças gerando US $ 790 milhões até 2010.

-Suportado por empresas que se beneficiaram dos fundos gerados pelos leilões, outros argumentaram que isso elevou os custos e afastou os empregos.

Objetivo atingido até 2001, estabeleceu nova meta de não aumento de GEE até 2012.

-Compras de negociação dentro da empresa.

-Trabalhei com a Environmental Defense para desenvolver um sistema interno de negociação de GEEs da empresa.

-Headed por um administrador nomeado pelo presidente e confirmado pelo Senado.

-Responsável por administrar os principais atos ambientais.

- Processo de aplicação - requer a apresentação de uma notificação de uma reclamação e uma audiência perante um juiz de direito administrativo (ALJ)

- "melhor tecnologia pratic�el", "melhor tecnologia convencional", "melhor tecnologia dispon�el", "tecnologia de controlo m�ima consegu�el";

A regulamentação da EPA tem sido amplamente comandada e controlada: regras ou padrões uniformes são ordenados e depois aplicados.

Para construir uma nova usina em uma área não atingida, uma empresa deve reduzir os poluentes em outras partes da área pelo montante a ser liberado por uma nova usina.

a empresa pode reduzir as emissões em outra de suas instalações ou pode comprar créditos de outra empresa.

-Para a limpeza de locais de eliminação de resíduos tóxicos.

O EPA tenta identificar a origem do despejo e forçá-lo a limpar o local.

-Informações incompletas sobre os custos e benefícios da proteção ambiental.

-Avaliações sobre abordagens alternativas (responsabilidade vs. regulação) à proteção.

-Diferenciar perspectivas sobre a proteção de direitos.

-A política ambiental e o movimento NIMBY são motivados por conseqüências distributivas e perspectivas normativas sobre a proteção do meio ambiente e da saúde.

Os grupos ambientais têm conseguido inserir as disposições dos cidadãos nas estátuas ambientais.

Sob a Lei da Água Limpa, o grupo ambientalista Waterkeeper Alliance processou a Smithfield Foods alegando que o escoamento de sua fazenda de suínos na Carolina do Norte poluiu os rios do estado → não é incomum, pode ser apoiado por interesses que buscam preservar seus aluguéis.

-Fonte de contenção na política ambiental.

-Oportunidade de usar a ciência de advocacy como parte da estratégia da política privada.

• Custos de proteção ambiental.

• Benefícios da redução da poluição e dos perigos.

• Grupos ambientalistas testemunham regularmente em audiências legislativas e regulatórias → alguns demonstram atrair a cobertura da mídia para o seu lado da questão.

• As políticas da empresa também podem gerar políticas públicas e privadas.

• Direcionado para → Recusa de disposição e locais de resíduos tóxicos, planos químicos e petrolíferos, outras instalações que possam emitir toxinas, isto é, locais de despejo.

- Fornece informações detalhadas sobre as emissões de 22.000 plantas de mais de 300 produtos químicos que se acredita terem consequências para a saúde.

-o Facilita a política privada na forma de ação NIMBY local.

o Como resultado do & quot; direito de saber & quot; alteração a uma lei de reautorização do Superfund de 1985.

o Os dados fornecidos para cada usina, para que as emissões possam ser identificadas para cada comunidade, permitem que os cidadãos locais realizem ações fora do mercado contra as usinas.

• Acitivites Internos → aconselhamento externo e consultas com as comunidades locais.

• ARB escolheu um sistema de limite e comércio.

• Oposição → via isso como um meio de impulsionar a demanda por energias renováveis.

• Ação judicial contra a ARB alegando que ela não cumpriu os requisitos processuais do devido processo.

Watts com isso?

O site mais visto do mundo sobre aquecimento global e mudanças climáticas.

& # 8216; capa e comércio & # 8217; falha por falta de incentivos.

Novas pesquisas sugerem que programas de cap and trade não fornecem incentivos suficientes para a inovação.

Os programas de limite e comércio para reduzir as emissões não fornecem, inerentemente, incentivos para induzir o setor privado a desenvolver tecnologias inovadoras para lidar com as mudanças climáticas, de acordo com um novo estudo na revista Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.

De fato, disse a autora Margaret Taylor, pesquisadora do Laboratório Nacional Lawrence Berkeley (Berkeley Lab) que conduziu o estudo enquanto professora assistente na Escola Goldman de Políticas Públicas da Universidade da Califórnia em Berkeley, o sucesso de alguns os programas de comércio para atingir metas predeterminadas de redução da poluição a baixo custo parecem ter incentivos reduzidos para pesquisa e desenvolvimento que poderiam ajudar a desenvolver metas mais adequadas de controle da poluição. Taylor é um cientista da divisão Environmental Energy Technologies do Berkeley Lab.

Os formuladores de políticas raramente enxergam com perfeita previsão quais são os objetivos de emissões apropriados para proteger a saúde pública e o meio ambiente - a história é que esses alvos geralmente precisam ser mais rigorosos, & # 8221; disse Taylor. Ainda assim, os formuladores de políticas raramente estabelecem metas que não tenham evidências de que a indústria possa atender. É nesse ponto que o R & D que pode levar ao desenvolvimento de tecnologias inovadoras a longo prazo é essencial. & # 8221;

No estudo, Taylor explorou a relação entre inovação e programas de cap and trade (CTPs). Ela usou dados empíricos dos dois CTPs mais bem-sucedidos do mundo, o mercado nacional dos EUA para o controle do dióxido de enxofre (SO2) e os estados do nordeste e do meio-Atlântico & # 8217; mercado de controle de óxido de nitrogênio (NOx). (Respectivamente, Título IV da Lei do Ar Limpo de 1990 e Comissão de Transporte de Ozônio / Programa de Orçamento de NOx.)

A pesquisa de Taylor mostra que antes do início da negociação desses CTPs, os analistas superestimavam o quão difícil seria para as fontes de emissões atingirem as metas, em um padrão frequentemente observado na regulamentação de saúde ambiental, segurança e eficiência energética, incluindo todo o mundo e CTPs de # 8217; Isso foi visto na superestimativa do valor das permissões, que permitem liberar um certo volume de emissões sob um CTP. Se uma entidade pode reduzir as emissões de forma barata, elas podem vender essas permissões por qualquer preço que puderem obter no mercado ou podem depositar essas permissões para atender a restrições posteriores de emissões.

Os programas de cap-and-trade que Taylor estudou exibiram preços de permissões menores do que o esperado, em parte porque os participantes do programa adotaram uma gama inesperada de abordagens para reduzir as fontes de emissão no período que antecedeu a negociação. Um grande banco de permissões cresceu em resposta, particularmente no programa SO2, sinalizando que os preços das permissões permaneceriam relaxados por muitos anos.

Mas essa mensagem de preço baixo não alterou as metas políticas dos PTC, apesar das evidências de que não seria apenas mais barato do que o esperado atingir essas metas, mas também seria mais importante para a saúde pública diminuir as metas, com base em sobre avanços científicos. O sinal de preço abaixo do esperado fez com que as fontes de emissões reavaliassem seus investimentos em tecnologias limpas, e levou a cancelamentos significativos, informou Taylor.

Enquanto isso, o preço baixo também sinaliza para inovadores que trabalham para desenvolver tecnologias limpas - que muitas vezes são distintas das fontes de emissão que mantêm permissões - que retornos potenciais para seus programas de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, que geralmente têm retornos incertos e de longo prazo, seriam menores. do que o esperado.

Este efeito também ajuda a explicar a descoberta do estudo de que a atividade de patenteamento, o indicador dominante de pesquisa e desenvolvimento orientado para o comércio, atingiu o pico antes da aprovação desses CTPs e depois caiu quando os mercados de permissões começaram a operar, atingindo níveis baixos desde o SO2 nacional. e o regulamento de NOx começou em 1970.

"Geralmente há coisas relativamente baratas e fáceis de fazer no início de qualquer novo programa de política ambiental," # 8221; disse Taylor, especialista em análise de políticas, política ambiental e energética e inovação. "Mas se fazer essas coisas tem a desvantagem de reduzir os incentivos para a inovação de longo prazo, pode haver um problema real, especialmente quando níveis dramáticos de mudança tecnológica são necessários, como no caso da estabilização do clima global." & # 8221;

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory aborda desafios científicos mais urgentes do mundo, avançando energia sustentável, protegendo a saúde humana, criando novos materiais e revelando a origem eo destino do universo. Fundada em 1931, a expertise científica do Berkeley Lab foi reconhecida com 13 prêmios Nobel. A Universidade da Califórnia administra o Berkeley Lab para o Office of Science do Departamento de Energia dos EUA. Para mais informações, visite lbl. gov.

Compartilhar isso:

Pós-navegação.

Bem, d & # 8217; uh! Que incentivo, quando se pode simplesmente aproveitar um enorme lucro e se aposentar? Quem iria querer realmente inventar algo?

[Perdeu sua linha de pensamento?

o trabalho principal dele, fez de Al Gore um monte de dinheiro.

Então a mensagem é:

1. Não subestime a capacidade da empresa livre de inovar e cumprir os requisitos das políticas a baixo custo, mesmo que eles queixem-se amargamente antes do cumprimento.

2. Inovar para reduzir as emissões de carbono não será tão caro quanto muitas pessoas esperam e, portanto, terá um impacto mínimo na economia.

Então agora temos provas de que todos aqueles caras que estavam fazendo não são "piores do que pensávamos". Não há surpresas para mim.

"Especialmente quando são necessários níveis dramáticos de mudança tecnológica, como no caso da estabilização do clima global".

A mulher claramente sofre de padrões de pensamento delirantes.

Isso é um duh! momento? Eles não entenderam que penalizar uma empresa poderia obter sua obediência relutante, mas nunca obterão seu apoio entusiástico?

E qual é a evidência científica de que existe a necessidade de um CO2 & # 8216; Cap and Trade & # 8217; Boondoggle?

Parece ser um bom salário para banqueiros e políticos que administram o esquema. Mas os custos são repassados ​​para os consumidores que, então, estão em "pobreza energética" # 8217; & # 8211; tudo muito malthusiano, afinal as pessoas em pobreza energética têm uma pontuação QALYS muito baixa; então, provavelmente, é melhor para todos se eles sucumbirem e deixarem de ser um dreno para os políticos. orçamentos.

Que desperdício de tempo e dinheiro. Esses esquemas de carbono logo serão esquecidos.

falta de incentivos = falta de dinheiro dos impostos para despejar um buraco negro sem benefício tangível para a sociedade.

Apoiar o tório nuclear, pelo menos, tem o benefício de produzir uma fonte de energia utilizável.

Acabei de me deparar com este comentário que explica muito a mentalidade destes predadores de supermercados.

Eu tive a oportunidade, há alguns dias, de conversar com um jovem ativista anti-nuclear sobre o modo como Fukushima ajudou a causa anti-nuclear.

Ele disse que a ideologia da sustentabilidade e do anti-nuclearismo era tão importante para o futuro da humanidade que os fatos não devem ser motivo de preocupação. Além disso: se a invenção de informação falsa sobre a energia nuclear poderia aproximar o dia da eliminação da energia nuclear da Terra, então isso significava que produzir e disseminar informação falsa deveria (e realmente era) uma prioridade de todos os anti grupos nucleares.

Então perguntei por que ele achava que era moral e defensável mentir para as pessoas. Ele disse que as pessoas em geral não podem e não baseiam seus pontos de vista e opiniões nos fatos, então o valor dos fatos versus ficção era relativo. A fim de provocar o resultado indesejado (isto é, um mundo livre de armas nucleares), a ficção poderia ser (e de fato era, na sua opinião) uma maneira muito melhor de fazer isso do que os fatos.

Finalmente, perguntei por que ele achava que a energia nuclear deveria ser eliminada mesmo depois que ele me disse que concordava que a energia nuclear era boa para a economia. Sua resposta foi simplesmente que um objetivo adicional do movimento antinuclear (no que lhe dizia respeito) era, de fato, a redução da atividade econômica, já que, segundo ele, a maior causa de dano ecológico era o aumento da atividade econômica.

Então, em sua mente, o fato de que a energia nuclear era uma benção para a economia era mais uma razão para tentar eliminá-la. Para terminar, eu disse a ele que uma redução na atividade econômica também reduziria suas próprias perspectivas de alta qualidade de vida e prosperidade. Mas ele não concordou comigo. Ele disse que a expansão econômica adicional não era útil para ele, porque ele acreditava em viver uma vida simples & # 8230; ..

Eu me pergunto como ele vai gostar de vadear através da neve até a pilha de madeira (se ele tiver sorte o suficiente para ter madeira) quando o clima sofrer uma queda nas temperaturas. Tente cortar madeira sem uma motosserra para obter uma apreciação real pela civilização. BTDT.

Considerando que a Cap and Trade foi um brainstorming projetado por uma empresa muito específica, a fim de lucrar muito com essa empresa, não é de admirar que ela não ajude as coisas no sentido genérico.

Cap and Trade foi uma ideia da Enron. A Enron iria capitalizar sobre o & # 8220; green & # 8221; movimento e os greenies bit gancho, linha e chumbada. O problema é que a Enron evaporou, mas o absurdo do Cap and Trade continuou vivo. A Enron simplesmente não estava lá para pastorear o mercado do jeito que planejaram e assim foi embora. A maioria dos greenies não sabia sobre os planos da Enron ou não queria admitir estar em conluio com a Enron. Então & # 8230; aqui estamos.

Eu diria que este artigo de 10 anos atrás é tão pertinente agora como era então:

Eu sempre disse que qualquer programa de Cap and Trade era simplesmente um golpe de dinheiro. Se uma substância (como o dióxido de enxofre, mercúrio, o que for) é perigosa, então deve haver um preço fixo para a liberação. Nada disso negociando indulgências & # 8216 ;. Quando você tem que pagar por cada tonelada liberada, você tem um incentivo contínuo para melhorar a eficiência.

O importante então é ter aqueles que determinam o preço em relação ao verdadeiro nível de perigo e a realidade tecnológica de como é difícil reduzir os níveis de liberação. Caso contrário, você acaba com algo como as atuais obsessivas regras da EPA sobre CO2 e Mercúrio.

15 de março: Tennessean: TN House passa a resolução condenando a Agenda 21.

A Câmara dos Deputados do estado votou 72-23 a favor da Resolução Conjunta 587 da Câmara dos Deputados, que denuncia o plano não vinculativo da Agenda 21 adoptado por uma conferência ambiental das Nações Unidas há duas décadas & # 8230;

Pouco conhecida até nos círculos ambientais e de planejamento até recentemente, a Agenda 21 chamou a atenção de grupos conservadores, que dizem que o documento pede aos governos nacionais e locais que sigam as metas ambientais limitando os direitos de propriedade e a liberdade.

Dois outros estados, Geórgia e New Hampshire, consideraram medidas anti-Agenda 21 este ano & # 8230;

Até o momento um Cap & amp; Um programa comercial para um determinado poluente é promulgado, a tecnologia já avançou, fazendo com que novas pesquisas e desenvolvimento tenham um alto custo. Os CFCs não foram regulamentados até que a DuPont tivesse HFAs e outros substitutos. O Protocolo de Montreal foi depois do fato. A tecnologia avançará antes da implementação, porque o atraso na implementação está no processo de criação de regras.

Aqueles que se apaixonam pela regulação governamental fracassam repetidas vezes, já que geralmente é mais barato implementar as melhores práticas & # 8221; em vez de táticas governamentais de estímulo ao gado, induziu mudanças de comportamento. As regras das agências governamentais tornam a maioria dos processos menos fluida e mais estática. Nosso código tributário é um exemplo vivo de regras que não são mais relevantes (subsídio para o milho) e repleto de conseqüências não intencionais (alimentos mais caros para as nações em desenvolvimento).

A taxação do ciclo do carbono é igualmente fútil e desalinhada, não apenas porque há déficits fundamentais na compreensão do que é "natural", mas carece de uma compreensão básica do que é possível e do impacto total. Correndo para regular quando falta compreensão fundamental, incentiva resultados desastrosos e bagunças sociais.

Governos de todos os tamanhos tentam equiparar as regras acordadas aos policiais no cumprimento da batida com a regulamentação de vastas indústrias, clima e clima. Esse conceito simplista fala sobre o quão pouco as pessoas no governo, especialmente as pessoas que fazem a implementação de regulamentações mal compreendidas e pensadas, acabam fazendo as regras à medida que vão. O processo de elaboração de regras geralmente é curto em fatos, carregado com projeções otimistas, limitado por um prazo, e quase sempre tem os participantes errados; isto é, sem a perspectiva contrária.

Nossa agenda atual da EPA com o Endangerment Finding é uma agência normativa por excelência de reguladores medíocres adeptos de disputas políticas.

Nosso atual financiamento do Departamento de Energia de projetos alternativos de energia solar e eólica é um representante da urgência de sugar o óleo / boi de carvão. A agenda não é mais garantir aos EUA segurança energética, mas sim alcançar o Santo Graal da sustentabilidade energética, como se houvesse tal coisa. Engraçado como os custos não são considerados na equação. Subsídios artificiais em vez de pesquisa e inovação.

Resultados previsíveis a toda a volta, quase todas as agências governamentais estão fora dos trilhos. Uma solução simples, fez todas as leis com cláusulas do sol não renováveis. Se um prazo está te encarando na cara, você terá que fazer novas leis e regulamentos contemporâneos e não tentar dobrar uma agência para fazer novas tarefas (NASA para ser uma agência climática versus NOAA), o que inevitavelmente cria duplicação e & 8230; . desperdício do governo. Surpresa!

Isso é muito interessante, mas, na verdade, bastante previsível. O setor privado está interessado apenas em maximizar o retorno aos investidores. Isso vale para a indústria de produção e para a indústria de inovação. A única maneira pela qual se pode alcançar o tipo de resultados desejados é através de meios mais dispendiosos com poucas ou nenhumas cláusulas de escape ou atraso. Isso é um tanto draconiano e pode não ser politicamente aceitável.

“Os formuladores de políticas raramente enxergam com perspicácia perfeita & # 8230; & # 8221;

Toda essa porcaria baseada na falsa suposição de que o CO2 está causando um aquecimento global catastrófico!

Bem, eu tinha feito um post aqui declarando minha opinião sobre o Cap and Trade, mas ele não veio ou até mesmo disse que está aguardando moderação, então eu suponho que ele se esqueceu e se perdeu. Ah bem.

Basicamente eu disse que minha opinião era de que C & amp; T é uma farsa, e que se uma substância era realmente um perigo para o meio ambiente, a resposta apropriada era um preço fixo (por tonelada ou qualquer outra coisa). Isso incentiva a pesquisa contínua em tecnologia de mitigação e fornece um incentivo para que todos produzam a resposta mais econômica disponível. E permite que o nível de produção aceite seja modificado ao longo do tempo, ajustando o preço.

Pessoas, devemos ser gentis com os alarmistas do clima. Algum dia eles podem se tornar uma fonte valiosa de proteína substituta. Aqueles Traeger BBQ's podem fazer quase qualquer coisa gosto de frango suculento.

Sugestão do [moderador: altere o seu nome de tela para Jonathon Swift e certifique-se de adicionar uma tag / sarc. - REP]

Toda essa porcaria baseada na falsa suposição de que o CO2 está causando um aquecimento global catastrófico!

Discordo. Toda essa porcaria é baseada na suposição de que há uma FORTUNA a ser feita tanto pela indústria privada quanto pelos políticos, se o público puder ser convencido de que o CO2 está causando um aquecimento global catastrófico.

Tenha em mente que uma das principais fontes de riqueza para os membros do Congresso tem sido o uso de informações privilegiadas. Eles trabalham em leis reguladoras e trocam as ações de empresas que serão impactadas por seus regulamentos e fazem uma fortuna (veja um livro chamado "Throw Them All Out", em inglês). Se você regular a energia, seus regulamentos afetam toda a economia. Você tem um leque muito mais amplo de maneiras de ganhar mão de dinheiro por meio de regulamentos. Por exemplo, você está trabalhando em um regulamento que você sabe que terá um grande impacto negativo sobre as companhias aéreas. Por isso, antes que as notícias sobre o regulamento sejam divulgadas, você vende um monte de ações das companhias aéreas. O estoque desce após a divulgação das informações e você ganha dinheiro com a venda a descoberto. Agora você cobre o curto com lucro e vai muito porque está prestes a anunciar uma emenda à legislação que aliviará o ônus sobre as companhias aéreas e que suas ações aumentarão. Você faz o comércio, faz o anúncio e lucra generosamente de novo à medida que as ações das companhias aéreas aumentam.

Não só isso, mas agora você tem alguns grandes doadores de campanha para fazer uma fortuna nesses regulamentos também. Então eles estão apoiando a legislação e despejando toneladas de dinheiro em seu fundo de campanha (que você pode manter quando se aposentar do Congresso).

Isso é sobre lucro, pessoal, isso não é sobre o "planeta".

Portanto, o DOE questiona por que a estratégia da Enron não funcionou para produzir uma solução baseada no mercado & # 8220; & # 8221; para quê? Uma crença fantasiosa de que 97% dos cientistas entrevistados estão certos sobre o aquecimento da Terra nos últimos 100 anos deve-se a uma correlação assumida após a pesquisa com o CO2. O DOE e a EPA fazem a licitação do Sr. Green. Os interesses do Sr. Green não são os interesses do público em geral.

“Os formuladores de políticas raramente enxergam com perfeita previsão quais são as metas de emissões apropriadas para proteger a saúde pública e o meio ambiente - a história é que essas metas geralmente precisam ser mais rigorosas”, disse Taylor.

Apropriado para o que? Que história? Por que mais estrito? A mera existência do controle é um problema?

Cap & # 8216; n & # 8217; os proponentes do comércio sempre falharam em buscar outros incentivos para reduzir as emissões de carbono, como o alto preço do petróleo.

Eles também não percebem que não há um substituto próximo para a alta energia de carbono. Se não houver um substituto próximo, os créditos de carbono se tornarão um custo adicional.

Eles também não percebem como é fácil mudar alguns empregos (especialmente de fabricação) para áreas de baixo custo. Se custos adicionais forem impostos em algumas áreas (Califórnia, Austrália, UE), alguns trabalhos serão transferidos para áreas onde não existem custos (China).

Sugestão do [moderador: altere o seu nome de tela para Jonathon Swift e certifique-se de adicionar uma tag / sarc. - REP]

Você está sugerindo que o sr. Swift teria aprovado os lilliputianos climáticos sendo assados ​​em espetinhos de kabob como um meio de redução de carbono?

mão esquerda não sabe o que a mão direita está fazendo?

18 de março: Jacarta Globe: Grace Chua: Straits Times: WWF, Cingapura Discorda da Contagem de Emissões de Carbono.

Your carbon emissions are still too high but, hey, Singapore is doing a great job when it comes to energy efficiency and others can learn from you.

That seems to be the “yes, but…” response from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), in the wake of a rebuttal by Singapore’s National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) to scathing remarks about the Republic’s greening efforts.

Earlier this month, media reports said that the WWF’s Living Planet Report (2010) had named Singapore as having the highest per capita carbon footprint in the Asia-Pacific region…

Last week, the NCCS — which comes under the Prime Minister’s Office — responded sharply, saying the comment “seriously misrepresents the situation.”

The key bone of contention is the methodology. The WWF counts emissions from goods that a country imports as attributed to that country.

But in the United Nations’ methodology, adopted by Singapore, those emissions are attributed to the country producing those goods…

National University of Singapore geography associate professor Victor Savage, who studies sustainable development, agreed with the NCCS’ point about “per capita” distortions.

He said using per capita emissions ratings lets large carbon emitters like China, Germany and Australia off the hook. They may not have high per capita emissions, but they are large overall emitters…

In February, a University of British Columbia study ranked the Republic bottom of 150 countries in its “ecological deficits,” meaning it used far more of the earth’s resources than it could supply.

In response to that study, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources said Singapore should be compared with other city-states, not larger nations with more natural resources.

The Asian Green City Index by technology firm Siemens last year rated Singapore tops in its management of waste and water resources, and gave it high marks in sanitation and environmental governance.

How do these guys calculate best fit line (RSS Graphs)?

Should they not now be thinking of readjusting it?

March 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm.

“So the message is:

1. Don’t underestimate the ability of free enterprise to innovate and to comply with policy requirements at low cost, even if they complain bitterly ahead of compliance.

2. Innovating to reduce carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect and therefore will have minimal impact on the economy.

So now we have evidence that all that handwringing you guys were doing is not “worse than we thought”. No surprises there for me.”

LazyTeenager, here in Europe we DO have Cap&Trade; and in Germany, skyrocketing electricity prices due to renewables. Now how DO companies adapt to such a regime? As you have noticed they adapt quickly. One such adaptation is currently happening in Duisburg, where Thyssen Krupp sells their steel mill to the Finnish Outokumpu who will shut it down, dismantle it and move it somewhere else. ThyssenKrupp plans to get out of steel completely.

Of course, this frees up some carbon credits for the remaining industry and also helps to reduce electricity usage, as unemployed steelworkers only need a little electricity to run their playstations.

THAT’s “the ability of free enterprise to innovate and to comply with policy requirements at low cost” para voce.

Too much power is in hands of the wrong people. I think it is time to take it away from them before they destroy it all.

LazyTeenager [March 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm] says:

“Innovating to reduce carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect and therefore will have minimal impact on the economy .”

Clearly a person who is logically irredeemable with nothing that he/she will not rationalize in support of the CO2 religious cult. Oh the irony of alarmist handwringing and bedwetting over forcings and tipping points while completely disregarding others …

Scenario A :: theoretical environmental forcings conspiring to tip the climate into a catastrophic condition. This is what the climate cult chooses to fret about.

Scenario B :: a gravely teetering economy submerged in hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars red ink debt and future liabilities, ongoing job destruction, outsourcing, unemployment, rising fuel prices, extravagant welfare spending and not-even-yet implemented obamacare. THIS is cavalierly targeted for a carbon tax that will affect every remaining product and job that exists. This is what the climate cult chooses to rationalize, likely as an acceptable casualty of war.

The complete and utter destruction of the economy and America itself will be the only possible result if we keep voting for people that are representative of this commenter, and there are far too many still in place in our District Of Criminals. They are like drunk drivers that drink more and more, then get in the car and drive faster and faster. Nothing will ever penetrate their inebriated ‘thought process’. You must take the car keys away. Vote them out next chance you get!

Apples and oranges. Just because controling SO2 and NOX were relatively easy doesn’t mean controling CO2 will be.

An artificial market manipulation will always yield poorer results than the self-regulatory market forces will bring to bear. But that’s too damn hard to comprehend for those who don’t participate in a market.

Given a 50/50 choice on incentives, Government will make the wrong choice 99% of the time.

18 March: UK Register: Microsoft signs up Aus eco geeks.

Australian cloud computing eco-warrior Carbon Systems has scored its most significant deal to date with a global Microsoft agreement.

Carbon Systems’ Australian developed cloud app, Enterprise Sustainability Platform (ESP), will be implemented across Microsoft’s 600 global facilities across 110 countries…

The privately owned and funded Australian company with digs in London, New York and Sydney, started in 2004 developing its core technology for electricity smart meters readings.

The company has also been supported by business incubator ATP Innovations and now has over 110 clients globally, 25 of which have stemmed from the sustainability software market which the company entered three years ago…

Carbon Systems: Executive Team.

Bastiat long ago drew attention to the foolishness of imagining that any cadre of ‘crats, no matter how numerous, could possibly monitor and allocate the resources as effectively as the private parties directly concerned. The attempt to force unreal prices onto marketplaces is the worst of such interventions. The consequences are immediate, drastic, and contrary to those desired.

The Invisible Hand has brass knucks, and will inflict mortal uppercuts and right crosses to those who try to substitute their own clumsy fiddling.

Cap and trade programs to reduce emissions do not inherently provide incentives to induce the private sector to develop innovative technologies to address climate change, according to a new study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Not exactly true….as an engineering consultant who tried to help some of these idiot carbon-credit-aggregator companies in hey-dey of the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, I came up with plenty of innovations that would have saved money for the clients and greatly improved their odds of making obscene profits from these projects. Mostly these were manure biogas projects in Asia and Latin America. Cool stuff, we have pig farms in the Philippines that produced 100% of their electricity from the pig manure fumes!

However, I was dealing with bean-counters and university washouts who had no idea of industrial equipment, elementary physics, chemistry, biology etc. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!

18 March: EarthTechling: Kristy Hessman: Carbon-Cutting Kids Cop Cool Cash.

Helping reduce carbon emissions is not only good for the environment, it can also have financial advantages. That’s what the schools that participated in Make an Impact: Change Our 2morrow (CO2) discovered. The month-long energy conservation challenge, put on by Alcoa Foundation and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), ended with six of the eight schools winning grants totaling $9,000.

The Gilbert School in Winsted, Conn., won the grand prize. The school completed a whopping 793 percent of its pledge list, according to the competition’s leader board. The school was rewarded with a $5,000 grant for engaging the most students, teachers, families and community members…

Regional runner-up schools included…ETC.

March 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm.

So the message is:

1. Don’t underestimate the ability of free enterprise to innovate and to comply with policy requirements at low cost, even if they complain bitterly ahead of compliance.

2. Innovating to reduce carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect and therefore will have minimal impact on the economy.

So now we have evidence that all that handwringing you guys were doing is not “worse than we thought”. No surprises there for me.

You forget there is a cost associated with all those regulations. For one thing you have to hire someone to handle all the paperwork and someone else to handle taking samples and sending them out for testing BTDT. That cost never ever goes away.

The cost of all this gets then passed onto the consumer because the company IS going to make a profit or close its doors. For example it used to be that diesel fuel was a heck of a lot cheap than gasoline. Now, in my area it is a good $0.38 more expensive. That is a 10% additional “tax” at the pump we as consumers are not even aware of.

Second thanks to all the regulations since the 1970’s, manufacturing jobs have gone from 24% of the job force to less than 9% the last time I looked and that was before the recession.

Free Trade Agreements combined with expensive energy and stringent regulations means business has fled the USA or gone under. And that means NO JOBS or rotten paying jobs as burger flippers and shop keepers. See: Largest American Employers.

U. S. unemployment is.

And our balance of trade as a result is deeply negative: graph.

In short the USA is in deep doodoo and sinking.

And so can economists.

the United States, however, continues its free-trade-induced trend towards “a nation of shopkeepers”(courtesy of NAFTA, the WTO, PNTR for China, and the newest round of free trade agreements with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Morocco, Australia, the Andean countries, and Central America), it will continue to lose the advantages – similar to those of the rising British Empire – which had put it on top of the world in the 20th century. The Bush Administration, not to mention most of the Congress, has yet to grasp what is happening economically, even as it tries to defuse some of the political consequences of free trade agreements.

WARNING: This is not a joke:

18 March: GreenProphet: Miriam Kress: Christians Take on Carbon Fast for Lent.

Among other eco-conscious Church leaders, the Archbishop of York has gone vegan and fair-trade for the duration of Lent…

And recently, churches are encouraging their congregations to take on an innovative Lenten sacrifice. It’s called the Carbon Fast.

Congregants are encouraged to take simple, carbon-reducing steps like eating less meat. (Our vegewarian recipes, like this risotto, give some good ideas for meatless meals.) Or packing groceries in reuseable bags instead of using that eco-menace, plastic bags. Walking, bicycling, or riding a bus rather than driving. You get the idea. These churches provide weekly calendars with suggestions and tips for carbon reduction, each paired to a spiritual goal. An intriguing example is, “Remember your baptism and the power of water. Conserve water: leave a bucket near the kitchen sink and water your plants with grey water.”…

This year communities in Canada, the Netherlands, India, Hong Kong, Australia, and Brazil are observing Carbon Fast.

Fully aware that individual acts must eventually lead to popular support for green legislation, Tearfund still calculates that the Carbon Fast’s actions, taken over the whole year, might save more than 7 tons of CO2 per person. This article in The Center for American Progress reports that 6000 people committed to last year’s Carbon Fast. With promotion through social media plus adaily carbon-lowering tip in congregant’s email inboxes, there should be even more this year. That sounds powerful.

Tomorrow’s interfaith convention on climate change and sustainable energy in Jerusalem promises to bring forward the power of religion in effecting eco-consciousness…

Pretty soon the government will be wanting to run the entire country.

And an endless stream of non-jobs from AGW. People paid to write proposals to ‘solve it’; others paid to criticise the proposals as inadequate; yet more paid to criticise the critics as underestimating the inadequacies….

The 21st Century will see the undoing of centuries of upward civilisation if we carry on like this.

Don’t forget that the present administration uses the EO (executive order ) to pass anything they desire, so a cap and trade or something similar could be on the way.

The whole theory presupposes that there is a viable alternative form of energy and that its just a matter of developing the technology to implement it. Hobbling competition may make that development more likely.

However, when the same government hobbles or even bans the only promising alternatives which are just waiting for development, supposing that something else is miraculously going to appear out of thin air, or maybe that a Vulcan spaceship is going to drop by and give us the secret of unlimited energy, then the results are predictable.

The so-called renewables (so called, because NOTHING is renewable, entropy will get it all in the end) such as wind and solar are non-starters for anyone that cares to invest a few moments of real thought.

The real alternatives, gas and oil from fracking, oil from tar sands, hydro electricity and, of course, nuclear energy are all forbidden.

The only thing that cap and trade in combination with these prohibitions will deliver is a broken energy industry, unreliable power, economic collapse, misery despair, famine, plague and death.

Cap-and-trade would have been run by the likes of these:

NVESTMENT banking titan Goldman Sachs has become a “toxic and destructive” firm focused on milking clients for everything it can, a resigning executive director said overnight in The New York Times.

Greg Smith said the Wall Street giant, which paid huge penalties for double-dealing with investors in mortgage securities during the financial crisis, had dumped its old culture of honestly helping its customers make money.

Today, instead, customers are called “muppets” by top executives and staff talk about “ripping their clients off”, Mr Smith wrote in an opinion piece.

Is treason to strong a word ?

So the message is: blah, blah, blah, more bafflegab.

The delusion is crashing down. If you believe in the problem to begin with, where is the solution? Every green fantasy has been pursued without any tangible result other than the waste of resources, capital and human effort. Most people would support research into a new energy source. Where is it? So far it has been dead ends and con jobs. Most of the ideas are so silly you would have to be very stoned to even consider them. Thorium is the flavour of the month but it has serious problems that may never be solved. More research, maybe, but don’t count any chickens.

The enviro movement won the day but they are lost now. None of their plans actually work. The hard part now is admitting the failure. That may take some time. The only thing that would meet their goals is a massive population cull. That one is a non starter I hope. Way too much work.

The toll booth approach doesn’t seem to be working for the klepto-bureaucrats here.

Expect something more hidden, like the fees Europe is imposing on airlines.

Obama get’s Ping Pong table made in China, Cameron gets Barbeque made in USA. So much for CO2 and global warming. I think a Hallmark card would have been sufficient. DAISNAID. telegraph. co. uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9151444/David-Camerons-table-tennis-table-gift-to-Barack-Obama-made-in-China. html.

“It was a gift that David Cameron chose to represent the best of Britain on his recent visit to meet Barack Obama in Washington.

But far from showcasing the wealth of talent in UK manufacturing, the £600 Dunlop tennis table presented to the US President was reportedly made abroad.

Downing Street had insisted that the “truly British” product was a fitting gift in the run up to the London 2012 Olympics.

However, it has been found that although the ping pong table was “designed and branded” in the UK, it was actually manufactured in China. & # 8220;

March 18, 2012 at 5:13 pm.

Bastiat long ago drew attention to the foolishness of imagining that any cadre of ‘crats, no matter how numerous, could possibly monitor and allocate the resources as effectively as the private parties directly concerned. The attempt to force unreal prices onto marketplaces is the worst of such interventions. The consequences are immediate, drastic, and contrary to those desired.

The Invisible Hand has brass knucks, and will inflict mortal uppercuts and right crosses to those who try to substitute their own clumsy fiddling.

The whole idea of bureaucratic fiddling and regulations is to divert money from the producing classes to the pockets of the a href=”joannenova. au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/”>Regulating Classes.

As far as the Regulating Classes are concerned the producing classes aka “the average joe” are sheep to be sheared and if recent events are any indication they could care less if a few million of us die because of there economic manipulations.

For the first time in history, over 1.02 billion people do not have enough to eat. That’s one sixth of humanity – more than the population of the United States, Canada and the European Union combined.

And we turn corn into ethanol to burn in our cars so Monsanto, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, could make record breaking profits.

Craig Moore says: Are you suggesting that Mr. Swift would have approved of climate Lilliputians being roasted on kabob sticks as a means of carbon reduction ?

What a horrible idea, Mr. Moore! The very idea of putting them on kabob sticks! Much better as a nice stew with taters. They are much too tough to make kabobs of them.

[Do I really need a /sarc on this. ]

March 18, 2012 at 5:16 pm.

& # 8230; & # 8230; Cool stuff, we have pig farms in the Philippines that produced 100% of their electricity from the pig manure fumes!

However, I was dealing with bean-counters and university washouts who had no idea of industrial equipment, elementary physics, chemistry, biology etc. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!

I knew a farmer who ran his Pick-up on Chicken Manure…. I keep looking at that manure pile I have sitting off in the woods.

The bean-counters are very very frustrating to work with. In desperation I took accounting courses so I had a chance of arguing successfully with them at least part of the time.

The only innovation is to learn how to trade a new derivative, CO2 for profit. Better to sell the business to China/India/Brazil/Russia and trade carefully with the profit. No running costs, no regulation red tape, no union troubles or delivery delays etc etc etc. Just you the trading platform and the tax office.

the australian gillard gov, t is a big fan of the carbon tax, from the 1st of july we are going to be taxed at $23 per ton on any company generating over 50000 tons this tax is going to destroy australia, please keep a eye on us we need tour help.

Hat tip to Small Dead Animals:

“Honourable senators, I rise to address Bill S-205, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. If passed, this amendment would give tax credits to Canadians who invest in so-called carbon offsets. While I have no objection to citizens spending their own money in any way they choose, I do not support the government’s giving tax credits for carbon offsets.”

March 18, 2012 at 5:29 pm.

The 21st Century will see the undoing of centuries of upward civilisation if we carry on like this.

That is the game plan it would seem.

..Would we not shatter it to bits, and then.

Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

In the Fabian Window just installed in the London School of Economics, the founder of both, Sidney Webb, along with George Bernard Shaw is depicted smashing the world to bits. Given what George Bernard Shaw has written about a world ” Remould nearer to their heart’s desire! I am not at all interested in living in it!

With the number of world leaders, CEO, Bankers … Who have graduated from that school or give seminars there I think it is idiotic to ignore the school’s influence especially when the free FABIAN SOCIETY PHAMPHLET [url=aeinstein/organizations/org/FDTD. pdf] From Dictator to Democracy[/url] was seen in Egypt.

…As journalists have sought to untangle the disparate threads that unite these uprisings, one of the most interesting revelations has been a common reference to a dusty — but still relevant — book, “From Dictatorship to Democracy.”

jack morrow says:

March 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm.

Don’t forget that the present administration uses the EO (executive order ) to pass anything they desire, so a cap and trade or something similar could be on the way.

They will wait until after the elections and pass it during the lame duck session just like they did with the very unpoplular “Food Safety Modernization Act” They hope we will forget about it when they come up for re-election.

Once passed you do not get the *&^$ bills repealed they just get worse.

Craig Moore says: Are you suggesting that Mr. Swift would have approved of climate Lilliputians being roasted on kabob sticks as a means of carbon reduction ?

Janice says: What a horrible idea, Mr. Moore! The very idea of putting them on kabob sticks! Much better as a nice stew with taters. They are much too tough to make kabobs of them.

I LOVE vegetarians, YUM! I am eating some cooked medium rare right now.

This article is quite interesting. That cap-and-trade was used in the 90s and 2000s in the way that Professor Taylor describes ignores the fact that the causes of “acid rain” and the acidity of lakes and rivers in New York and most of the Northeast was not utility power plant emissions, nor was the phenomenon as harmful as EPA and the politicians found it to be. The program “60 Minutes” debunked the need for an acid rain cap-and-trade scheme long ago, and there are other scientists who have debunked the myth as well. See the following:

“A fanciful belief that 97% of the scientists polled are right about the earth warming in the last 100 years is due to an assumed after the poll correlation to CO2.”

I really wish people would start saying that 77 “scientists” out of 100s of thousands think CO2 is a poison, and that we are all gonna roast.

And you can bet your bottom penny that the ONLY reason that gubermints go along with these schemes is money in their pockets, farck the rest of us.

morgo….I always keep an eye on OZ ever since I fell in love with it (and of course the shielas!!) way back in ’82.Unfortunately it appears it is no longer the free loving, leftard hating, hard working country I found.

To be honest, I stopped reading when I hit “Berkeley”

The incredible idiocy of “cap and trade” isn’t that it hasn’t worked as planned, but that it accomplsihes nothing that would haven’t have been accomplished anyway. For any industry for which energy is a significant operating expense, the pressure to reduce energy costs by any means possible is relentless. Trucking, mining, shipping, pulp and paper, smelting, pick one, these are all industries working hard to reduce their energy costs, period. Cap and trade provides nothing more than a tax on their proftits that would otherwise have been invested in things like…reducing energy costs.

The secondary effect of “cap and trade” is to push companies away from traditional energy sources toward “green” energy sources like windmills. So now the economy gets hit with a double whammy. Companies spending time and resources to switch energy supply to idiotic things like wind farms instead of spending those resources on energy efficiency, and tax dollars being used to subsidize the wind farms in order to make the competitive so that industry will have something to switch to that isn’t more expensive than just paying the carbon tax in the first place.

Confronted with the fact that industry is highly motivated to reduce energy consumption in the first place, the idiots instead hobble their ability to do so, pour tax dollers into alternative energy which simply winds up subsidizing industry’s options instead of encouraging energy efficiency, and then it takes some geniuses with PhD’s to figure out that the while thing is not working as planned.

Excuse me, but what “planned economy” has EVER worked as planned?

One thing they failed to notice… was that the public in general was already warned about consummate liars in the Joe Isuzu commercials.

David Leisure’s character showed us the extent that some one would go (although he was fictitious) in pushing a meme.

These guys have nothing on Joe Isuzu, they are rank amateurs.

“Policymakers rarely see with perfect foresight what the appropriate emissions targets are to protect the public health ..”

Since when did increased atmospheric CO2 have any demonstrable public health consequences?

I can never figure out if people like Taylor are being deliberately deceptive, or are just merely deluded.

Gail Combs says:

March 18, 2012 at 7:06 pm.

I LOVE vegetarians, YUM! I am eating some cooked medium rare right now.

The game wardens will be paying you a visit if you poach them. At least that’s what I see on the Nat Geo channel. Try some other cooking method.

So now we have evidence that all that handwringing you guys were doing is not “worse than we thought”. No surprises there for me.>>>

No what we have is evidence that industry bean counters have been able to outsmart and circumvent government bean counters.

If you think that there is no impact to the cost of food on your plate and the clothes that you wear, and putting a roof over your head, then you are either have an incredibly poor grasp of the economics at play, or you still live off your mommey and your daddy and hence haven’t had to think about these things.

Folks, this is the key….nearly every industrial waste product has a value to someone. The gypsum used in the wallboard in our homes originally came from the wet sulfur scrubbers of coal-fired utilities. Coal ash is so valuable that there is a trade group dedicated to developing new markets, see acaa-usa/

Eventually, new uses will be found for the excess carbon dioxide generated from fossil fuel plants. The carbon dioxide that sparkles your soft drink originally came from an ethanol fermenter & was purified (I’m a former BOC Gases consultant & worked on this stuff, cool as hell if you like chemical engineering!). Carbon dioxide is being widely used to replace solvents, mineral acids and other nasty stuff.

It’s just a matter of time, let the private markets figure it out. If someone can crack the algae puzzle (how to grow the stuff efficiently), there will be a run on fossil carbon dioxide. I’m right in the thick of this through the University of Illinois, it is fun to watch!

Of course, if we are TOO good at recovering all this fossil carbon dioxide, I’m worried about a cooling planet thanks to Svensmark’s theories! (looking over my shoulder for an incoming Lief!)

Life is good, enjoy!

BTW LazyTeenager, do you know what a 2% drop in standard of living in the western world translates into in the third world?

Any chance you can do some hand wringing for the people who are actually starving to death because we’re burning the food for carbon credits?

March 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm.

BTW LazyTeenager, do you know what a 2% drop in standard of living in the western world translates into in the third world?

Any chance you can do some hand wringing for the people who are actually starving to death because we’re burning the food for carbon credits?

David – you won’t see any hand-wringing as that is what they want for the whole world not just the third world. The entire thrust of the ‘Green Agenda’ aka Agenda 21 aka Rio Declaration aka Club of Rome is that humanity is the problem and must be reduced. For some reason they always seem to think that they and their families will be immune from their cull.

Craig Moore says:

March 18, 2012 at 7:53 pm>

Gail Combs says:

March 18, 2012 at 7:06 pm.

I LOVE vegetarians, YUM! I am eating some cooked medium rare right now. & gt; & gt;

The game wardens will be paying you a visit if you poach them. At least that’s what I see on the Nat Geo channel. Try some other cooking method.>>>

There’s nothing wrong with Gail’s cooking method provided that one keeps in mind that many game wardens are vegetarians. Clearly not all are vegetarian, but variety is good for one’s diet.

I wonder how he is going to like wading through thigh deep snow to the wood pile (If he is lucky enough to have wood) when the climate takes a down turn in temperatures. Try cutting wood without a chainsaw to get a real appreciation for civilization. BTDT.

Wood would become a valuable commodity, as it was prior to the industrial revolution. Access to woodland, and the right to collect wood would be restricted. Charcoal would once again become an important fuel and the main use of wood, as it was prior to large scale coal mining.

The reality is that most people in places like Europe and Japan would have little or no wood as fuel, or for cooking. If they were lucky they would get to cook their dinner using a dried cow patty.

BTW I’ve seen charcoal being made the traditional way. All the volatile materials from green wood are ‘cooked off’ as smoke and that is an awful lot of smoke.

BTW LazyTeenager, do you know what a 2% drop in standard of living in the western world translates into in the third world?

Look, Lazy Teenager isn’t worth wasting your time acknowledging. That person is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with these people. Everything is ideology with them without a lick of sense. They would “save the planet” to death if they had their way. It is simply brainless following of a cultural fashion. Engaging with that person is a waste of both of your time. You aren’t dealing with a rational person.

March 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm.

There’s nothing wrong with Gail’s cooking method provided that one keeps in mind that many game wardens are vegetarians. Clearly not all are vegetarian, but variety is good for one’s diet.

I guess like Indoor cat food, it would control hairballs.

March 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm.

18 March: EarthTechling: Kristy Hessman: Carbon-Cutting Kids Cop Cool Cash.

Helping reduce carbon emissions is not only good for the environment, it can also have financial advantages. That’s what the schools that participated in Make an Impact: Change Our 2morrow (CO2) discovered. The month-long energy conservation challenge, put on by Alcoa Foundation and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), ended with six of the eight schools winning grants totaling $9,000.

Yes Pat, you nailed it exactly. The whole effort is directed toward political indoctrination and brainwashing. Real innovation and sound technology are not part of the picture.

Lazy teenager says.

“Innovating to reduce carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect and therefore will have minimal impact on the economy.”

As others have already indicated there is virtually no viable subsitute for carbon as an energy source, especially for liquid fuels. If Nuclear is ruled out there is no viable replacement for electricity either. It is foolish to claim that technology can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Anyone who has ever worked in research and brought technology to commercialization in the real world would never make a claim that such a policy will have minimal impact on the economy.

Also keep in mind the great promise of cellulosic ethanol. Economics aside, in spite of massive subsidies and investments the policy has failed to provide any commercial quantities of ethanol to date. Besides, who can afford to pay $ 14/gal like the Navy has been forced to do.

Some of the low carbon proponents have come to realize this and have invented the term “renewable fuel”, (which actualy emits comparable CO2).

The government has been forced to back off the mandated cellulosic ethanol content drastically, yet still plans to fine the blenders for not incorporating nonexistant ethanol.

For anyone who has a fundamental understanding of energy, it is obvious that there is no viable near term subsitute for carbon that will meet our energy needs. In fact there may never be a subsitute in the forms currently pushed by the government.

The government will continue to try to fool the public with scams like electric cars, which have limited application, because a viable battery does not exist that allows vehicle travel a reasonable distance. The public now knows this with their rejection of electric cars in spite if $7,000 credits per car. It is foolish to subsidize a vehicle for which there is no power source, even on the horizon for multiple decades.

No private industry would spend their own $$$ perfecting any device or technology that has an obvious fatal flaw. You work on the weak link before going into commercialization! The technology was pushed to temporarily fool the public into believing there is an alternative (hiding the fact than an electric car is actually a coal burner).

The current energy plan will destroy the economy!

What would you trade, for one of these ?

Yes it is true. Due to the failure to provide a fed with a gun to hold to my head, I refuse to buy carbon indulgences from these scam artists.

In the UK we have enormous gas and electricity bills, partly because of a government-enforced surcharge (which is then taxed at 20%) to subsidise wind farms and other inefficient alternative energy schemes.

Craig Moore says:

March 18, 2012 at 7:53 pm.

Gail Combs says:

March 18, 2012 at 7:06 pm.

I LOVE vegetarians, YUM! I am eating some cooked medium rare right now.

The game wardens will be paying you a visit if you poach them. At least that’s what I see on the Nat Geo channel. Try some other cooking method.

Not a problem. I sell my overstock to a deputy. Besides the police dept. around here is crookeder ‘than a dog’s hind leg.

Gee, a phony artificial “market” gets adaptive results orthogonal to those the creators expected?

I’m shocked, shocked I say, to learn that a berated teenager only pays lip service to the goals of the one doing the berating…

Mao Stlong*’s CAGW Lepolt.

“China Halts 10 More Airbus Orders”

China has suspended the purchase of 10 more Airbus jets, two people familiar with the matter said on Thursday, raising the stakes in a potentially damaging trade row over European Union airline emissions charges.

The move to delay the purchase of extra A330 planes brings to $14 billion the value of European aircraft caught up in tensions over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which has angered countries including China, India and the United States.

It comes amid urgent efforts to find a solution to the row, which airlines fear could provoke an aviation trade war capable of causing travel disruption and hitting air traffic rights.

Earlier this week, European planemaker Airbus said China had blocked the purchase of 35 long-haul A330s and 10 Airbus A380 superjumbos worth a total of $12 billion.

Airbus did not name the airlines involved, but industry sources said the A380s were earmarked for Hong Kong Airlines, 46-percent owned by HNA Group, the parent of Hainan Airlines.

The row is over a cap-and-trade scheme which could levy charges for carbon emissions for flights in and out of Europe.”

*Meet Mao Stlong:

“Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!

March 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm.

here in Europe we DO have Cap&Trade; and in Germany, skyrocketing electricity prices due to renewables.

The Northwest European Benchmark price for a tonne of steam coal has gone from $35 in the year 2000 to $95 in 2010. As a rough approximation every $20 increase in the price of a tonne of coal adds 1 cent to the price of a KWh of electricity. So the price of coal added.

Renewables and carbon taxes probably added some as well making it all particularly painful.

March 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm.

& # 8221; here in Europe we DO have Cap&Trade; and in Germany, skyrocketing electricity prices due to renewables. Now how DO companies adapt to such a regime? As you have noticed they adapt quickly. One such adaptation is currently happening in Duisburg, where Thyssen Krupp sells their steel mill to the Finnish Outokumpu who will shut it down, dismantle it and move it somewhere else. ThyssenKrupp plans to get out of steel completely.

Of course, this frees up some carbon credits for the remaining industry and also helps to reduce electricity usage, as unemployed steelworkers only need a little electricity to run their playstations.

THAT’s “the ability of free enterprise to innovate and to comply with policy requirements at low cost” for you.”

That’s just a copy of what happened to Redcar,(formerly) the UK’s largest steel mill. It attracted a huge Carbon credit to reduce it’s CO2 output. It was bought by Tata of India (where a well-known railroad engineer has his day-job) who closed Redcar and mades the workforce unemployed. pocketed the huge carbon credit, moved the plant to India where it now produces as much steel as Redcar used to make. They also pocketed a large subsidy for doing so. Now India produces all (and more) CO2 than Redcar ever did!

How does that suit you Lazy teenager?

It should not take an academic study to determine that Cap & Trade programs structured like those for SO2 and NOx would not “induce the private sector to develop innovative technologies”. Anyone remotely familiar with these successful EPA programs could have told you that.

Ms. Taylor appears to lack a fundamental understanding of the original goals of these programs. Specifically that the purpose of the CAIR cap and trading programs was to reduce overall regional SO2 and NOx levels under circumstances where it was recognized that: 1) the goals could be meet using existing technology and, 2) not all utility plants had to be controlled to meet the regional goals.

Since there was no economic need for any NEW “innovative Technologies”, the private sector properly invested in BUILDING and IMPROVING the capabilities of the best technologies commercially available at the time. Specifically the Wet FGD and the SCR. Any needed adjustment to meet the emission goals in these programs is/was taken take of by constructing the next marginal cost unit in the region. No new technology was needed.

Furthermore , I would disagree with Ms. Taylor’s implied proposition that the private sector did not develop innovative technologies to meet these goals. To the contrary there were significant advancements in the performance of the existing technology of the time. And these advancements continue.

I would agree with the statement “the dominate indicator of commercially-oriented research and development peaked before these CTPS were passed”. This always happens once a regulation is passed, simply because the utilities have to shift their R&D resources (both manpower and money) to build pollution equipment that can meet the regulation within tight deadlines. Simply put, key personnel are shifted from the R&D role to a design and construction role. This should not be a suprise; becuase, from a practical standpoint, utilities simply do not have time to do more R&D at that junction… it’s time to deliver usable product.

Once the initial construction phase passes the Utility/Engineering R&D people shift emphasis to “lessons learned” and lowering operating cost.

In my experience, the reduced reliance on “new technolgy” research (with the passage of any regulation) is a sore point to the academic community… because they are never too pleased to find that companies can’t afford to waste time on ideas which are… hmm “academic”. So, I’m entirely not surprised the researchers at Berkeley Lab are appalled at the natural outcome of this economic reality.

I would also disagree with Ms. Taylors observation that cap-and-trade programs “exhibited lower-than-expected allowance prices” that “did not cause the policy targets to change”. Perhaps she is not familiar with the drop in the CAIR Phase 2 emission limits or the more stringent drop in emissions required by the CSAPR rule. Nor does she appear to recognize the periodic tightening of the best available technology standards.

All-in-all a pretty sloppy “policy” paper.

Isnt’ that the tell tale sign of the ones getting frivolous subsidies already, but that continue to demand more?

Dear LazyTeenager where you say:

“March 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm.

“So the message is:

1. Don’t underestimate the ability of free enterprise to innovate and to comply with policy requirements at low cost, even if they complain bitterly ahead of compliance.

2. Innovating to reduce carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect and therefore will have minimal impact on the economy.”

I’m afraid you may be making the rookie mistake of assuming that market-based allowance prices reflect the total cost a pollution technology. Normally this true only during the first three to five of years of a new regulation – when pollution equipment is scarce and demand for allowance reflects the total cost of controlling an emission.

This ceases to be true once a country’s industry has matured to the point that it has built-up its “fleet” of pollution technology to meet the annual emission “cap”. In a mature market, the allowance prices only reflects the operating cost of the control technology (i. e. reagent cost plus operating O&M). Typically the capital cost is not recovered, it is passed to the consumer as a fixed cost.

To place this in context, the economic decision in a mature market, is wither to operate your pollution equipment or not. When allowances market prices drop below a control technology’s operating cost, the owner simply shuts-down the pollution equipment and buys the allowance instead. This provides companies with the flexibility to provide the consumer with some “cushion” in unusual circumstances (for example, if reagent prices are unusually high or if pollution equipment unexpectedly fails). But the consumer is still “hurt” .. as the “hidden” capital cost cannot be avoided.

With regard to your statement above, I would caution you not to assume than any discussion/examination of “low” allowance prices should lead you to assume “carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect”. Or that you can assume that any discussion of that historical emission allowance prices trends will tell anything about the actual cost of controlling an emission.

Best Regards, Kforestcat.

March 19, 2012 at 6:06 pm.

With regard to your statement above, I would caution you not to assume than any discussion/examination of “low” allowance prices should lead you to assume “carbon emissions will not be as expensive as many people expect”. Or that you can assume that any discussion of that historical emission allowance prices trends will tell anything about the actual cost of controlling an emission.

Indeed, the whole d*** thing is a version of Bastiat’s ‘Broken window fallacy”. The real costs are the “unseen”, the foregone productive activities the diverted funds would have covered and sustained. The 2-4:1 ratio of lost jobs in the private sector to new “green stimulus jobs” is one example.

Search WUWT:

The Maxim of our resolve.

“ Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. & # 8221; & # 8211; Andrew Breitbart | consulte Mais informação.

Site stats.

344,336,486 views.

Weather Picture of the Day.

Click for the image.

Awarded TOP 100 Status.

". the world's most viewed climate website"

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files:

The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming.

". changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. - Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker.

Now on DVD:

NEW RELEASE! BUY THIS BOOK…

Shameless Plug.

Siga me no twitter.

Follow WUWT via Email.

Postagens recentes.

Top Posts & amp; Páginas.

Categorias.

Comentários recentes.

Humor/Satire.

Lukewarmers.

Political Climate.

Pro AGW Views.

Skeptical Views.

Transcendent Rant and way out there theory.

Unreliable*

Click for the:

Sea Ice Page.

Solar Images & Data Page.

Atmospheric Maps Page.

ENSO/SST Page.

ENSO Meter.

WUWT Tag Cloud.

Links patrocinados.

Copyright Notice.

Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2017, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O'Brien aka slandering "Sou" from Hotwhopper, that means you.)

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

Todos os direitos reservados no mundo inteiro.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

Programa Cap-and-Trade.

Este site fornece informações sobre o programa Cap-and-Trade da Califórnia, que entrou em vigor no início de 2012. A obrigatória obrigação de conformidade começou em 1º de janeiro de 2013, para emissões de gases de efeito estufa (GEE).

Atividades de Implementação do Programa:

Regulamento, orientação, informações de mercado, formulários, perguntas frequentes e & amp; Reuniões

Regulamentação atual e propostas de alterações regulamentares:

Documentos de Orientação:

Orientações Regulamentares Orientações Regulamentares sobre Transferências de Instrumentos de Conformidade Guidance de Divulgações Corporativas Guidance de Relatório de Emissões de GEE Guidance de Atestação de Pedidos de Leilão Guidance de Transição e Documentos de Referência do CITSS (atualizado em 1 de dezembro de 2017).

Informação Publicamente Disponível sobre o Mercado:

Faça o download de formulários:

Perguntas frequentes (FAQs), fichas informativas e declarações de políticas:

Visão geral do programa Perguntas freqüentes sobre embaralhamento de recursos Protegendo a segurança de informações confidenciais e pessoais (declaração de política) Supervisão e aplicação do mercado (Fact Sheet) Fatos: Combustíveis sob o limite Orientações sobre consignação para leilão Perguntas freqüentes para informações sobre a vinculação de compradores de combustível 2017) FAQs sobre as Múltiplas Abatimentos Vintage oferecidas na Folha de Dados do Limite de Retenção Atual do Leilão (atualizada em 1 de dezembro de 2017) Ficha técnica de isenção limitada.

Workshops Públicos, Webinários de Treinamento e Grupos Consultivos:

Workshops e Reuniões Públicas Serviços de Sistema de Rastreamento de Instrumento de Conformidade (CITSS) Webinars Grupo de Simulação de Mercado (MSG) Comitê de Avaliação de Mercado de Emissões (EMAC) Comitê de Consultoria Econômica e Alocação (EAAC) Treinamento de Conformidade com o Programa de Cap-and-Trade (PDF) Cap-and-Trade Treinamento de conformidade do programa (Áudio - escolha salvar para reproduzir o slideshow)

Informação sobre.

Informações de referência.

O Plano de Escopo AB 32 identifica um programa de limite e comércio como uma das estratégias que a Califórnia empregará para reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa (GEE) que causam a mudança climática. Este programa ajudará a colocar a Califórnia no caminho para atingir sua meta de reduzir as emissões de GEE para os níveis de 1990 até 2020 e, em última análise, atingir uma redução de 80% em relação aos níveis de 1990 até 2050. Sob limite e comércio, um limite geral de GEE as emissões dos setores limitados serão estabelecidas pelo programa cap-and-trade e as instalações sujeitas ao limite serão capazes de negociar permissões (licenças) para emitir GEEs.

O California Air Resources Board (ARB) criou um programa cap-and-trade da Califórnia que é exequível e atende aos requisitos da AB 32. O desenvolvimento deste programa incluiu um processo plurianual de partes interessadas e a consideração dos potenciais impactos em comunidades desproporcionalmente impactadas. . O programa começa em 1º de janeiro de 2012, com uma obrigação de cumprimento obrigatória a partir das emissões de GHG de 2013.

A Califórnia está trabalhando em estreita colaboração com a Colúmbia Britânica, Ontário, Quebec e Manitoba por meio da Western Climate Initiative para desenvolver programas de cap and trade harmonizados que proporcionarão reduções de emissões com boa relação custo-benefício. As jurisdições da WCI formaram uma corporação sem fins lucrativos, a WCI, Inc., para fornecer suporte administrativo e técnico coordenado e econômico para os programas de comércio de emissões de suas jurisdições participantes. Assim como com outros acordos voluntários que o ARB estabelece com distritos aéreos locais, estados, governo federal e contratados, o acordo da ARB com a WCI, Inc. não confere nenhuma autoridade de tomada de decisão; as decisões relativas à regulamentação de limitação e comércio do ARB são tomadas pelo ARB sob a direção do Conselho. Mais detalhes sobre a organização e operação da WCI, Inc., podem ser encontrados em: wci-inc /

O que é o Cap-and-Trade?

Cap-and-trade é uma regulamentação baseada no mercado que é projetada para reduzir gases de efeito estufa (GEEs) de múltiplas fontes. Cap-and-trade estabelece um limite ou limite firme para os GEEs e minimiza os custos de conformidade para alcançar as metas do AB 32. O teto cairá aproximadamente 3% ao ano a partir de 2013. A negociação cria incentivos para reduzir os GEEs abaixo dos níveis permitidos por meio de investimentos em tecnologias limpas. Com um mercado de carbono, um preço de carbono é estabelecido para os GEEs. As forças do mercado estimulam a inovação tecnológica e os investimentos em energia limpa. Cap-and-trade é uma resposta ambientalmente eficaz e economicamente eficiente às mudanças climáticas.

Para questões de regulamentação ou programa, entre em contato com a Linha Direta do Cap-and-Trade pelo número (916) 322-2037.

Solicitações de notícias ou imprensa devem ser encaminhadas ao Gabinete de Informação ao Público do ARB (916) 322-2990.

Recursos.

O Conselho é um dos seis conselhos, departamentos e escritórios abaixo.

o guarda-chuva da Agência de Proteção Ambiental da Califórnia.

Patience and Policy Needed on Drive toward Sustainability.

I recently responded to a question on the National Journal blog, “What ‘s holding back electric cars?”

You can read more on the original blog post and other responses at the National Journal.

Here is my response:

We shouldn’t be discouraged about the future of electric vehicles because some early movers are not meeting expectations.

The recent decision by advanced battery maker A123 Systems to seek bankruptcy protection is evidence the company made missteps and perhaps grew faster than it could handle, which is not unusual in high tech. But having a veteran auto industry supplier like Johnson Controls move to acquire A123’s auto battery business sends a strong signal to the market that the technology has long-term viability.

We also shouldn’t lose sight of the transformative opportunity these vehicles present by focusing on the early bumps in the road. The development and introduction of these vehicles will benefit both the economy and the environment by using energy more efficiently. Electric cars also hold great potential to wean us off oil and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

A car is the second most expensive thing many of us will ever purchase, so we won’t move to entirely new propulsion systems such as electric drive powered by fuel cells or batteries overnight.

We must allow more time for the public and private investments we’ve already made to bear fruit. Early investments by Toyota and others in hybrid-electric drivetrains have paid dividends as automakers distribute this technology across their product line. The same will happen with plug-in electric cars.

Ultimately, market forces must drive sales of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). But for now, public policy plays a critical role.

Washington has already done a lot to support the electric vehicle industry, including tax incentives, loans, and extensive use of the bully pulpit. The new 2025 fuel economy standards are also driving investment in vehicle efficiency technology. But it’s not practical to expect much additional public investment given competing priorities.

To help define the respective roles of government, business and consumers, we convened the PEV Dialogue Group, a group of public and private experts whose recent Action Plan lays out a number of ways to facilitate a real national electric car market. We’re now working with officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia to implement the group’s recommendations.

At the federal level, the group recommends keeping the existing vehicle tax credit, which is essential despite what others have been saying. A vehicle tax credit helped grow sales of hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, by nearly 70 percent from 2005 to 2007, and has helped electric cars sell at twice the rate as hybrids when they were at this stage in their history. Policymakers should consider making the credit a direct rebate to encourage government - or nonprofit-operated fleets to switch to electric cars.

As laid out in our Action Plan, electric utilities, other businesses, all levels of government, and NGOs need to work together to make this happen. Most of the steps recommended by the group can be taken outside Washington, at the state and local level. Esses incluem:

Facilitate regulatory reform, such as rules that encourage drivers to charge when power is cheapest to produce. The existing electrical grid can support millions of electric cars so long as drivers charge when demand is low, which is also when electricity is cheapest to produce. Establish and share best practices. Across the country, groups of all kinds have been facilitating the introduction of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure in new markets by establishing codes and standards and educating consumers. We should collect and share what is being learned to create a consistent and compatible market for these vehicles in all 50 states. Optimize deployment of charging infrastructure. The PEV Action Plan addresses the “chicken-and-egg problem” of coordinating the expansion of vehicles and charging infrastructure. But this is much less challenging for electric vehicles than, for example, for hydrogen vehicles since charging at home is relatively straightforward. Existing research and experience indicates a dense, publicly funded infrastructure is not needed to spur vehicle sales. However, home charging, including for those who rely on street parking, is essential. The PEV Action plan includes simple measures, such as having dealers notify electric utilities when new electric vehicles are purchased in their service territories.

Electric cars have suffered from hype from all sides. Automakers, government, and the media touted these cars as a panacea for a struggling domestic auto industry. The true role for electric vehicles is to help us move down the road toward a sustainable transportation system.

Publicações relacionadas:

Eileen Claussen.

Eileen Claussen is the Former President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and Strategies for the Global Environment. Ms. Claussen is the former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

The Energy Collective Columns.

Últimos Comentários.

Advisory Panel.

Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. Mais "

Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. Mais "

Elias Hinckley is a strategic advisor on energy finance and energy policy to investors, energy companies and governments More »

Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. Mais "

Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. Mais "

Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. Mais "

Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. Mais "

Q&A: Michigan economist discusses the market forces pushing electric vehicles, clean energy.

Written By Andy Balaskovitz September 22, 2017.

After serving 18 years as chief global economist at Ford Motor Co. and then as chief economist at the U. S. Department of Commerce under President Barack Obama, Ellen Hughes-Cromwick brings a market-driven perspective to the way energy use and transportation could mitigate the impacts of climate change.

In late July, Hughes-Cromwick started as senior economist at the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, where she will help lead research on this “intersection of energy, economics, policy, and human behavior.”

Her new role comes as Michigan advocates, utilities, regulators and other stakeholders are debating next-generation transportation and mobility issues, and what policies the state should be enacting in order to build out electric vehicle infrastructure and boost deployment.

Hughes-Cromwick spoke with Midwest Energy News this week on what drives EV deployment, the research topics she’d like to explore at Energy Institute, and how the cost curves of wind and solar are “very powerful forces” in transitioning from fossil fuels.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Midwest Energy News: What will be your role at the Energy Institute?

Hughes-Cromwick: One of the areas I want to explore as we look ahead at the future of energy and transportation is to see what kind of data and analysis we can do as we see the shift toward electrified vehicles, connected vehicles, and then autonomous vehicles.

The business models that are developing around car sharing and higher degrees of autonomous vehicles — like level 4 vehicles — probably mean households might not own as many vehicles as they do today. They might be leased or managed by some digital platform entities. And that could really change the way we consume energy.

What does some of that research involve?

The research would be looking specifically at the cost associated with converting from a very low-level of autonomous vehicle content — like we see with adaptive cruise control and lane-changing or automatic parking — to (completely autonomous vehicles). What does the cost structure look like and how does that affect the rate of production of these types of vehicles? If it’s really expensive for a household to buy an electrified vehicle, or highly autonomous vehicle, then the rate of a replacement plan to scrap conventional vehicles and buy these new models will be affected.

Another area of interest is the development around digital platforms and what that means for energy use and the mix of energy use. With the introduction of Uber in urban areas potentially optimizing travel, how do we measure the potential energy impact? And does it reduce the amount of energy that is used?

At the same time, it might increase the amount of energy used simply because the price might be cheap. I know some studies underway to look at the way mass transit might be adversely affected by the advent of something like Uber.

In terms of electric-vehicle deployment, are we on the right path in order to meaningfully reduce emissions?

I think we’re at the beginning stages, frankly. The volume of electrified vehicles is relatively small and low, although China has probably grown electrified vehicle volumes at a much faster pace than most other countries.

I do think the introduction of Tesla’s Model 3 will be important to watch. They’ve promised to ramp up production volumes to 20,000 per month. That’s going to be really important — that’s at a price point that is very low compared to many other electrified vehicles that have hit the market. If they’re able to do that with the kind of range on a battery that would reduce (range anxiety), it could potentially be path-breaking.

If it’s about replacing internal combustion engines with electric vehicles, what kind of policies would best drive that?

The history of this is pretty straightforward: Subsidies have helped to induce greater demand for electrified vehicles, whether at the state or federal level. The marketplace in and of itself will determine the demand for electrified vehicles, and that’s really a function of what the all-in cost of ownership is for an electrified versus a traditional vehicle.

Michigan doesn’t have statewide incentives for EVs. Does that mean we’re falling behind others in deployment and infrastructure?

I think we all have to provide good analysis and evidence-based policy-making in this area. That is to say, we really need to ensure that we’re doing research that helps inform those policy decisions over time. It’s not directly evident that one potential pathway of subsidies is going to be better and sustainable over time versus letting the market allocate the resources and allow for that transition. I’m hesitant to say we need a heavy-handed policy to drive it.

I do believe that, given the negative externality associated with emissions, a carbon tax or cap and trade system are shown to be very effective and the best approach to garnering changes in behavior in light of the fact that we consumers and businesses don’t pay for the greenhouse gas emissions we may be responsible for as we consume goods and services.

On the electric side, could growth in renewables be slowed with policies that incentivize base-load plants or that lift regulations on the coal industry?

I really don’t see that trend (of declining prices) being reversed. The sustainability of that reduction in the cost curves of solar and wind — those forces are very powerful. It’s just hard to ignore and hard to roll back time and say, “No, we really want to go in this other direction.” A lot of local and state leaders recognize that it’s very important to address climate change and that we have to move into the future.

There has been recent discussion in Michigan among the major stakeholders about electric vehicle deployment and infrastructure. Is there a clear role for utilities and manufacturers?

Certainly there has to be some working-together-as-one-team on this. We can’t have one part of the industry lagging or dragging its feet while the other is scooting ahead. We need the infrastructure.

Tesla has taken its own brute force approach and developed its own charging infrastructure that is very broad-based. It seems redundant that every auto manufacturer has to set up their own charging stations. That seems to be excess costs. That’s why it is important to have the development of a common charging infrastructure.

I will say, though, that we have digital platforms popping up now to share household charging stations. Over time as the cost of super-charging stations comes down — say $500 versus $5,000 — that’s going to make a big difference, and that $500 investment could actually turn that household a profit if they put that on a digital platform and rented it out to others.

There are those kinds of innovations I think will be breakthroughs on charging infrastructure.

Filed Under:

Minnesota electric vehicle advocates question fairness of new annual fee.

Advocates in Minnesota agree that electric vehicle owners should help pay for roads, but raise questions about the fairness of a new $75 fee intended to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

Comentários estão fechados.

ÚLTIMAS NOTÍCIAS.

Energy registry aims to standardize utility data for cities, counties.

AEP Ohio to get another rate case hearing, this time with public notice.

Putting the ‘farm’ back in solar farms: Study to test ag potential at PV sites.

Iowa city moving towards goal of energy independence.

Gaming the system: Competition spurs energy savings in Wisconsin.

Energy sensors and controls could boost Wisconsin economy, study says.

Iowa town’s municipal utility effort is financially feasible, consultant finds.

In Ohio, no signs of cooling or compromise in net-metering fight.

More Midwest Energy News.

&cópia de; Copyright 2018, Midwest Energy News. Published by RE-AMP.