I hope you’re already following Julio Friedmann’s Substack effort to delineate what he calls “The Work” of building an energy and resource future that also mitigates the global heating challenge.
Dang! My only regret is not following Andy years ago. He consistently tells the truth and uncovers the whole climate change fiasco. He deserves to close ala Cronkite in all his lucid posts.. "And, that's the way it is".
I agree ver much with what you say about lock in and CO2 capture and sequestration. (You mention only sequestration of CO2 as gas, not reacting it to create inert compounds, nor capture from the atmosphere but those are also an option).
You do not discuss what kind of incentives would lead firms to capture and sequester CO2. It is worth pointing out that regardless of its present political unpopularity, taxation of net emissions is the way to incentivize the lowest cost technologies. To be one step more specific, there could be an excise tax on the first sale of a carbon-containing fuel in proportion to its carbon content and a standing tax credit (at the equivalent rate) for atmospheric capture and sequestration.
This is far from denigrating discussion and promotion of other more immediately politically feasible incentive options, but they too need to be designed to incentivize low-cost reduction of emissions. Conceptually, other policies should seek to mimic the effects of the tax on net emissions.
These considerations should also rule out measures that reduce emissions by very small amounts at high cost. I have in mind certain numbers I have heard mentions of programs within the IRA as well as regulatory measures that block production and transportation of fossil fuels in the US. If successful, these measures will only result in production elsewhere with minimal reduction in global emissions, but the opportunity cost will be borne by the US.
One important way in which other incentives should mimic the tax is to be at least fiscally neutral on the margin. It is not sustainable to offer incentives that have fiscal costs if the net effect of paying out those incentives is to increase borrowing. Fiscal borrowing for CO2 emissions reducing incentives mainly crowds out other investment and so would make dealing with climate change a drag on growth.
GhG Emissions are greatest around large impoundment reservoirs. Many ecological issues develop when you impound most of a rivers flow for months behind large hydroelectric dams and their reservoirs. Dams Constructed in extreme environments like the Arctic , and subarctic close to the smallest ocean in the world are particularly nasty to the entire Arctic region. This is low hanging fruit. Something that we can interrupt. Just need to STOP buying "renewable"? hydro from Canada, no more imports
The USA needs to place a moratorium on buying / importing any hydroelectric from Canada. If Canada, specifically speaking, mainly Canada's hydro industry is unable to sell to its nearest neighbor US, and they are told particularly why we will no longer buy this greenwashed energy, they will have no further incentive to construct even more dams in the Arctic/subarctic regions.
Dam construction of the magnitude that Canada has done takes a decade or more to complete with cost overruns into the billions. The vast majority of water and the water cycle for the N.Hemisphere has been radically altered by the huge profusion of dams
throughout northern Canada and Siberia . If on the other hand we keep buying Canadian electricity we'll give them more incentive and we will be paying for construction of more mega dams and the additional costs will lead to even more rapid disintegration of climate and further increases in sea level rise.
We've got 60 years of research, much of it started by the most prolific data collector and former head of the Bedford Oceanographic Institute in NovaScotia, the late Hans Neu. He was director there 1964-1984. Bedford Institute was hired by Hydro Quebec to study the impact some of the new dams in the St Lawrence River watershed estuary and onto the continental shelf . He collected water and air temperatures , ocean currents, and marine food webs. After several years of gathering data he made some starling findings, he wanted to be very sure so he carried on this research as I said for several years. In the end he presented his data to Hydro Quebec and they were shocked. They discontinued their contract with Bedford institute and threatened Neu that he should not publish these findings in any reputable scientific journals. We picked up where he left off.
If you ever have a deeper interest in our work I'd like to send/ email you directly more detailed data and facts. My email bcountry@psouth.net
Thomas we really should continue this off line. Quebec tried to succeed from the country for a reason. Hydro Quebec pretty much acts independent of the Canadian Gov't. Oversight...barely, HQ transparency 0. They've actually been able to prevent some of the weather data being released from one of the stations nearby one of their dams.
So tell me about yourself. What's your background? Are you a scientist? You were recently in BC for a conference or Manitoba? Are you Canadian?
It appears that your interest in what my posts have suggested has not much in common with economics of carbon pricing. This next comment does. The cost of doing business for super corporations wil include taxes for polluting. This approach to assist improvement of climate will be very slow at best, too slow. Tracking and reliability this will offer lots of uncertainty. If you do not have any interest in my posts, which you do not seem to be. If there is a serious effort needed to slow down the heating of the planet and particularly slowing heating of the Arctic region carbon pricing economics will do nothing in the short run but only slightly in the long run
Dang! My only regret is not following Andy years ago. He consistently tells the truth and uncovers the whole climate change fiasco. He deserves to close ala Cronkite in all his lucid posts.. "And, that's the way it is".
Humbled!
I agree ver much with what you say about lock in and CO2 capture and sequestration. (You mention only sequestration of CO2 as gas, not reacting it to create inert compounds, nor capture from the atmosphere but those are also an option).
You do not discuss what kind of incentives would lead firms to capture and sequester CO2. It is worth pointing out that regardless of its present political unpopularity, taxation of net emissions is the way to incentivize the lowest cost technologies. To be one step more specific, there could be an excise tax on the first sale of a carbon-containing fuel in proportion to its carbon content and a standing tax credit (at the equivalent rate) for atmospheric capture and sequestration.
This is far from denigrating discussion and promotion of other more immediately politically feasible incentive options, but they too need to be designed to incentivize low-cost reduction of emissions. Conceptually, other policies should seek to mimic the effects of the tax on net emissions.
These considerations should also rule out measures that reduce emissions by very small amounts at high cost. I have in mind certain numbers I have heard mentions of programs within the IRA as well as regulatory measures that block production and transportation of fossil fuels in the US. If successful, these measures will only result in production elsewhere with minimal reduction in global emissions, but the opportunity cost will be borne by the US.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/power-decarbonization-and-lng-exports
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
One important way in which other incentives should mimic the tax is to be at least fiscally neutral on the margin. It is not sustainable to offer incentives that have fiscal costs if the net effect of paying out those incentives is to increase borrowing. Fiscal borrowing for CO2 emissions reducing incentives mainly crowds out other investment and so would make dealing with climate change a drag on growth.
GhG Emissions are greatest around large impoundment reservoirs. Many ecological issues develop when you impound most of a rivers flow for months behind large hydroelectric dams and their reservoirs. Dams Constructed in extreme environments like the Arctic , and subarctic close to the smallest ocean in the world are particularly nasty to the entire Arctic region. This is low hanging fruit. Something that we can interrupt. Just need to STOP buying "renewable"? hydro from Canada, no more imports
Could you spell out the mechanism in play. How does what you have in mind lead to lower emissions?
Hello Thomas,
The USA needs to place a moratorium on buying / importing any hydroelectric from Canada. If Canada, specifically speaking, mainly Canada's hydro industry is unable to sell to its nearest neighbor US, and they are told particularly why we will no longer buy this greenwashed energy, they will have no further incentive to construct even more dams in the Arctic/subarctic regions.
Dam construction of the magnitude that Canada has done takes a decade or more to complete with cost overruns into the billions. The vast majority of water and the water cycle for the N.Hemisphere has been radically altered by the huge profusion of dams
throughout northern Canada and Siberia . If on the other hand we keep buying Canadian electricity we'll give them more incentive and we will be paying for construction of more mega dams and the additional costs will lead to even more rapid disintegration of climate and further increases in sea level rise.
We've got 60 years of research, much of it started by the most prolific data collector and former head of the Bedford Oceanographic Institute in NovaScotia, the late Hans Neu. He was director there 1964-1984. Bedford Institute was hired by Hydro Quebec to study the impact some of the new dams in the St Lawrence River watershed estuary and onto the continental shelf . He collected water and air temperatures , ocean currents, and marine food webs. After several years of gathering data he made some starling findings, he wanted to be very sure so he carried on this research as I said for several years. In the end he presented his data to Hydro Quebec and they were shocked. They discontinued their contract with Bedford institute and threatened Neu that he should not publish these findings in any reputable scientific journals. We picked up where he left off.
If you ever have a deeper interest in our work I'd like to send/ email you directly more detailed data and facts. My email bcountry@psouth.net
I’m unclear about what the externality in Hydro Quebec practices are? And shouldn’t the Canadian government be overseeing that?
Thomas we really should continue this off line. Quebec tried to succeed from the country for a reason. Hydro Quebec pretty much acts independent of the Canadian Gov't. Oversight...barely, HQ transparency 0. They've actually been able to prevent some of the weather data being released from one of the stations nearby one of their dams.
So tell me about yourself. What's your background? Are you a scientist? You were recently in BC for a conference or Manitoba? Are you Canadian?
I'm nd economist and still do not understand what Hydro Quebec has tod with my post about CCS
It appears that your interest in what my posts have suggested has not much in common with economics of carbon pricing. This next comment does. The cost of doing business for super corporations wil include taxes for polluting. This approach to assist improvement of climate will be very slow at best, too slow. Tracking and reliability this will offer lots of uncertainty. If you do not have any interest in my posts, which you do not seem to be. If there is a serious effort needed to slow down the heating of the planet and particularly slowing heating of the Arctic region carbon pricing economics will do nothing in the short run but only slightly in the long run