Local actions and tragedy of the commons

This entry was posted on 2/27/2008 11:12 PM and is filed under Tragedy of the Commons,Local action,Economics.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 2/28/2008 8:56 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Some comments....
  
  << Individual and local actions to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas ... will do little to solve our energy-related problems. >>
  
  To be precise, I would say that you're right on the GHG side, but if you refocus the lens to look at PERSONAL energy security, there is great benefit to "doing something."
  
  If one believes that grid-supplied energy will always be there, without fail, and that petroleum-based fuels will always be there at affordable prices, then changing nothing is the smartest thing an individual can do right now. But a more risk-savvy person would decide to reduce his/her exposure to future energy-related problems by buying a more efficient car or getting a job closer to home; improving house insulation, windows, etc.; or installing energy-reducing technologies like solar hot water. These things all make sense economically anyway. If a person were even more risk-averse, they would install some solar panels so they could at least keep the fridge running the next time the grid goes down for a week.
  
  All of those actions have the secondary effect of reducing GHGs, even though the primary goal was a personal benefit.
  
  I would argue that the "energy security" approach works at any level---communities, cities, states, and countries can all benefits from being less reliant on outside energy supplies. But I do agree that implementing GHG actions at those levels in absence of global action makes little sense. But that's from a selfish standpoint---movements always need leaders: people to take the first steps, to develop methodologies, to show that it can be done without causing "the end of the world."
  
  The "tragedy of the commons" problem is the reason an unregulated free market can never work in practice. The incentives and means for incorporating the costs to the commons are too weak to be effective.
  
  << Non-renewable energy is so cheap, >>
  
  ...only because the true costs of using them are not priced into the consumer-paid cost. Renewables, even solar PV, would look very attractive for the long-term if fossil-fuel based energy were properly priced and the potential impacts of energy shortages based on current technologies was accounted for. I know you know this, Paul, but I restate it so that it's clear we're talking about "fixing" the pricing mechanisms because they are BROKEN, not because we're trying to fix (rig) the pricing mechanisms toward some arbitrarily chosen replacement(s).
  Reply to this
  1. 2/28/2008 11:46 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Good points - thanks.  Particularly on the "energy security" approach.
     
     I'm optimistic (maybe overly so) that it will be a few years (10-15?) before there is significant upheaval and possible energy shortages.  I base this on global peak oil projections I've read and the HOPE that those in the "middle of the pack" (suggest we haven't hit it yet but will likely in the next 10-20 years) are right.  This gives us a short window of opportunity to phase-in the needed changes.
     
     If we don't act now, future energy shortages and economic upheaval will have been created by us not having sustainable energy policies - particularly during the 1990's and more so during 2000-2007 when there were obvious environmental and market signals that were ignored.
     
     My experience is that most citizens are not interesting in any projects with more than a 5-6 year payback (including estimates of energy price increases).  (Again, I'm probably being optimistic and the number is likely closer to 3 years)  Factor in that if people wait, say, two years to buy a solar water heater, it will likely be more efficient and energy prices will be more expensive, so why not wait?  We live in a capitalistic society and if we really want conservation and renewable energy to "take off", we need to accelerate things by raising taxes on non-renewable energy by reducing federal income taxes.  We're pissing away our window of opportunity as we trim around the edges.
     
     Instead of moving passionately to get our elected representatives to really solve the problem by enacting laws so we start paying the external costs of our energy use, those with the FIRE to actually foment this change are driving Priuses, installing more insulation, and feeling good about doing their part even though THESE ACTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.
     

     
     On << Non-renewable energy is so cheap... >>, I agree with everything you've said.
     
     I like saying "Non-renewable energy is so cheap" as a stand alone statement because it's true.  For $3.09 I can move our minivan 25 MILES.  This is ridiculously cheap.  Once or twice I've pushed the minivan 2 FEET in our garage, to avoid starting it, and it is work.  Those that have heated a home with a wood-burning stove have a better appreciation of the work required compared to 'bumping up' the thermostat when chilly.
     
     Non-renewable energy is ridiculously cheap GIVEN THE VALUE DERIVED.  (and, yes, it's cheap because we're not paying the external cost of it's use)  Couple these two facts and they point to why we need to raise taxes on non-renewable energy via a revenue-neutral, federal tax shift.
     

     
     Reply to this
• 3/1/2008 11:03 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Mark:
  
  "If a person were even more risk-averse, they would install some solar panels so they could at least keep the fridge running the next time the grid goes down for a week."
  
  Hi,
  
  You mean keep the fridge running during sunny days while the grid is down. A better investment would be a small generator (gasoline powered
  
  Paul:
  
  "Non-renewable energy is ridiculously cheap GIVEN THE VALUE DERIVED"--(because there is no charge added for the unknown and unknowable cost of the CO2 emissions).
  
  But additional nuclear plants can't be built to replace the existing coal ones, because the cost of reprocessing the existing "spent fuel nuclear waste" is also unknown, right?
  Reply to this
  1. 3/2/2008 8:42 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     
     Jim,
     
     You had me there for a minute; I had to look back at what I wrote...... I didn't write "(because there is no charge added for the unknown and unknowable cost of the CO2 emissions)."  Many of the costs of CO2 emissions are known - things like the effects of global warming (including more severe weather, drought, flooding, and higher insurance costs).
     
     Sure the costs are "knowable."  They can be estimated; yes, there is debate about the amount....but at this point, who cares?  The costs are significant and reducing them will help people in the U.S and in other countries.
     
     The costs are the iceberg, we're the Titanic, and our federal representatives still have their hand on an open throttle.
     
     Paul
     
     Reply to this
• 3/1/2008 11:10 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Mark:
  
  "The "tragedy of the commons" problem is the reason an unregulated free market can never work in practice. The incentives and means for incorporating the costs to the commons are too weak to be effective."
  
  No the Garett Hardin essay says that socialism (as is commonly understood) can't work in the long run.
  
  http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/common.txt
  Reply to this
• 3/3/2008 12:06 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Jim --
  
  Thanks for that link -- interesting reading.
  
  I agree that my use of the phrase "Tragedy of the Commons" was incorrect -- a better way to say might have been "the problem of the welfare of the commons" or "The Tragedy of the Externalities."
  
  Commons management is a problem whether the system is pure capitalism or pure socialism. Human nature is not well suited to either system in their pure forms, so there must be an agreed-upon set of rules with which to conduct business---more than just "whatever the two parties want to work out" (in capitalism) or "whatever the good will of the people may bring" (in socialism). Even when a resource is shared successfully as a commons, the potential for externalities is there. For instance, if the cows on the Hippy Dippy Commons Farm are allowed to spend half the day standing in the creek on the property, the pooped- and peed-in water will flow into and contaminate the portion of the creek on the next farm over. (This is actually one of the most common causes of water pollution in the US.)
  
  The real problem, as I see it, is that pollutants always extend beyond the bounds of the owned entity, negatively affecting those who see no (or less) counterbalancing benefit from the productive output of the polluting source. Pure capitalism has no practical mechanism to deal with this; and the few we do have of trying to let the market work it out, like product labeling, are grossly inadequate and are usually fought by producers. Further, the structure of markets gives players little incentive for sensible long-term management of resources and little benefit from planning for what will be important 20-50 years from now. Our current system of "stacked capitalism" has resulted from political choices driven by many factors, with the "welfare of the commons" usually receiving little true weight.
  
  The population angle is also important, since we're already in overshoot mode. You only have to look at a graph of population growth over the last two millennia to see that we're headed for a serious problem. Malthus and Ehrlich were not wrong, their timing was just off a bit. As for what we do about the population problem, forced sterilization is clearly out; but it's just as clear to me that we should stop using the tax code to subsidize something we already have in abundance---children.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
  1. 3/3/2008 9:14 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Great info Mark and Jim - thanks.
     
     Sadly, from Jim's reference and per Garrett Hardin - May 1994, a fact related to capitalism:
     
     In the early stages of the exploitation of a natural resource, when there is no real shortage, an unmanaged commons is the most economical mode of distribution.  But human demands increase faster than resources, so there comes a time when a help-yourself policy becomes contrary to the interests of all.
     
     We're well into shortages of natural resources -- what are we going to do?
     
     **********************
     
     Here's another angle - Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken
     
     Reply to this
• 3/3/2008 4:28 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Paul,
  
  You say the cost of climate change (a better term than "Global Warming" as this winter illustrates) is "knowable" because it can be estimated?
  
  But the "estimates" are just guesses that run from the destruction of the human race (how much is that in dollars?) to a positive gain from those who like warm weather, or live in Canada, or want to ship goods via the Northwest Passage.
  
  I say the "Cost of GHG induced climate change" is a lot less "knowable" than are the "cost estimates" of recycling nuclear waste into new fuel.
  Reply to this
  1. 3/3/2008 9:42 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Jim,
     
     I hear ya on the climate change/global warming terminology question.  I still think there's some benefit to calling it global warming the vast majority of the time because climate change can easily be twisted into "it's OK or even good."
     
     I stand by my statement <<Sure the costs are "knowable."  They can be estimated; yes, there is debate about the amount....but at this point, who cares?  The costs are significant and reducing them will help people in the U.S and in other countries.>>  Who cares about a 'real good' estimate?  Let's not get into 'analysis paralysis' and not act.
     
     Agree,  <<the "Cost of GHG induced climate change" is a lot less "knowable" than are the "cost estimates" of recycling nuclear waste into new fuel.>>  So, given the huge repercussions of climate change we simply need to act (the Titanic thing).  There's little argument that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will result in a very large payback.  (anytime 'possible destruction of the human race' is in play, it's a good investment)
     
     The accuracy of cost estimates of recycling nuclear are more important because this is a go/no go decision.  What is the cost/benefit of recycling nuclear waste?  Since, if it is ever opened, Yucca mountain will be filled IN SIX YEARS (2014), where will the 5% of high-level material (l believe that's the number) be stored long-term?  What state?  What county?  How much will it cost?
     
     When investors find another long-term storage site, gain approval for it, work out waste transportation, security and safety issues, and fund a recycling plant using their money (except for some R&D) - I won't argue against it.  A potential new beginning for nuclear.  Your opinion?  Will people invest there money in this WITHOUT government subsidies?? 
     
     BUT, what is this CRAP about building new plants now, when there is no recycling, and NO PLACE TO PUT THE WASTE?  What's your answer to this?  Per Mark on grinningplanet.com - "Nuclear energy is the generational equivalent of child abuse."  What right do we have to 'mortgage' our children's future because we're not WILLING to live within our means???
     
     Let's get started on the right track by starting to pay the external costs of our energy use at the time we use the energy by enacting a federal tax shift.
     
     Reply to this
• 3/4/2008 9:36 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Jim wrote:
  << I say the "Cost of GHG induced climate change" is a lot less "knowable" than are the "cost estimates" of recycling nuclear waste into new fuel. >>
  
  Really? An overwhelming majority of scientists predict serious negative effects from global warming within decades, and potentially catastrophic effects over a century or so. On the other hand, nuclear waste is a problem for thousands or millions of years. How are the costs of such an ultra-long-term problem possibly knowable?
  
  Perhaps the costs for both issues are not perfectly knowable, but to argue that we are smart enough and dedicated enough---and that we have a stable enough civilization---to guarantee proper management of nuclear waste for thousands of years seems like folly to me. Can you imagine if, at the height of the Roman civilization, they had said "we can store our worst toxic waste in the old dried-up aqueduct---it's strong, doesn't leak, and we have the know-how to protect it forever"... How different is our situation today?
  
  In the end, unless there is a radical mind-shift towards clean energy, we will get the worst of both worlds---more nuclear (and waste) and little overall progress on reducing GHGs (because we have no tolerance for inconvenience or long-term investment anymore). Good luck, Futurama generations!
  
  Increasingly pessimistic,
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 3/4/2008 5:02 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Paul: (on what if we were now building nuclear power plants instead of coal ones.)
  
  
  " where will the 5% of high-level material (l believe that's the number) be stored long-term? What state? What county? How much will it cost?"
  
  I assume where the waste from the 103 currently operating nuclear plants is being stored; on site near each reactor in "temporary" pools of water, waiting for better solution.
  
  They have been doing that for 40 years. But whether it is 103 plants or 350, the problem is the same. We need to deal with it, and I say recycling is the best solution.
  
  And I say 350 (250 new ones) because that is the approximate number needed to shut down all coal power plants with no reduction in capacity.
  
  Instead, we are currently building new coal plants, and the waste from those is being discharged into the atmosphere- mercury, small particles, and of course CO2.
  
  As for costs, charge the coal plants for their waste, and then we can worry about the cost of recycling. And we can ask those who now do it about recycling costs.
  
  And did you see the PARADE last Sunday? Wind power, and the millions being spent to delay the Cape Wind project by years. Recall that one of your objection to a subsidy for nuclear was that some of it was budgeted to pay for the legal fees to deal with the lawsuits it would cause. But ANY attempt to generate renewable or non-CO2 power meets with legal challenges.
  
  And where to best spend research money?
  I suggest on building a portable automated nuclear waste reprocessing trailer that could be moved by truck to nuclear plants and reprocess their stored spent fuel rods into new fuel.
  
  There have been huge advances in both robots/automation and in separation technology during the last 20 years, and such a device should be well within the possible today.
  Reply to this
  1. 3/4/2008 10:17 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Jim,
     <<I assume where the waste from the 103 currently operating nuclear plants is being stored; on site near each reactor in "temporary" pools of water, waiting for better solution.>>
     
     For me, that's completely unacceptable.  It's one thing to have built these 103 nuclear plants waiting for a better solution.  Not a good idea, but it's in the past.  But, now to not have learned the challenges involved and to not understand that it is our responsibility to HAVE long-term storage before building any more.........?
     
     For all nuclear proponents - by what right would we build more nuclear plants now when we don't have long-term storage or reprocessing???????????  (please answer this question)
     
     
     <<....and I say recycling is the best solution.>>  OK, then let's have private investors implement it and prove it before building more nuclear plants.
     
     <<As for costs, charge the coal plants for their waste,......>>  Agree.  The best way for all of us to begin paying these external costs is a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.
     
     Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
     
     <<But ANY attempt to generate renewable or non-CO2 power meets with legal challenges.>>  Huh?  To my knowledge most solar and wind power projects don't have formal legal challenges.  Sure, community members have questions.  Either way - no subsidies for legal challenges.  And, legal costs for nuclear have been an order of magnitude greater than those for non-renewable energy.
     
     <<And where to best spend research money?  I suggest on building a portable automated nuclear waste reprocessing trailer that could be moved by truck to nuclear plants and reprocess their stored spent fuel rods into new fuel.>>  Cool idea.  May be better than transporting the high-level nuclear waste.  Either way - let's have private investors implement a solution and prove it BEFORE building more nuclear power plants.
     
     Reply to this
• 3/5/2008 6:42 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  There were no lawsuits when I put in my twin 2.7KW tracking solar arrays. The reaction has been fascination and interest, not objections. Granted, I don't live in some hoity-toity snobville. Shame on both the Kennedy's and all the other Richie Rich's up there who hypocritically opposed the Cape Wind project, and shame to the homeowners associations (like Al Gore's) who tell homeowners they can't install solar panels because they don't "fit the look" of the neighborhood.
  
  Readers may be interested in a couple of articles I wrote on the subject of hypocrisy:
  On the left:
  http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/03-13/environmental-hypocrites.htm
  On the right:
  http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/06-21/environmental-hypocrisy.htm
  
  Now back to the discussion here. We're arguing over whether nuclear plants or coal plants are better (or less bad), when we should be arguing for policies that are more inventive, that are built on distributed power and lower demand from the grid.
  
  (1) The energy discussions here and on the political stage are dominated by supply-side mentality. Demand projections for electricity needs are fine, but to say we must necessarily develop policy by assuming the projected demand curve can't be changed is crazy. It's really part of the mentality that keeps us on the growth treadmill. There is an obvious logical limit to growth at some point. As a society, we have to change trains, or we will crash in the end. Just as the US housing bubble could not be sustained and the ever-increasing US model of ever-expanding debt could not be sustained (the dollar is now crashing and we're in serious danger of the banking system imploding), never-ending growth in population, resource use, and industrial output WILL end and we WILL accept limits, one way or the other.
  
  (2) Everyone has gotten used to the convenience of grid-supplied utilities, and as an owner of ancillary systems for electricity production and rainwater capture, I can attest to the fact that they do require attention (not to mention thought, dollars, and time to design and install). Even things like raising the shades on a cold sunny day to catch free sun energy takes a little effort. We under-price grid-supplied power, therefore people have little financial incentive to invest time and money in making themselves less reliant on grid power.
  
  This is really a conservative message I'm offering here: More self-reliance, more letting the market work it out, less subsidizing of dumb behavior. The first step to getting off the Train of Doom is to make the cost of dirty grid power reflect the TRUE cost.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
  1. 3/5/2008 7:36 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Valuable comment and I enjoyed your articles on environmental hypocrites.  Refreshing to see truly balanced coverage where facts are presented regardless of political sides.
     
     Reply to this
• 3/5/2008 4:04 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  For Mark: Remember that the uranium ore the nuclear fuel came from is also radioactive and will be for hundreds of thousands of years, and is scattered about and in some places blowing in the wind.
  
  I think the proper question not "how long will the reactor waste be dangerous" but rather "how long before reactor waste is less dangerous than the original ore that it came from?"
  
  Do you agree?
  
  And if properly reprocessed, the answer is "several hundred years". If the Roman Empire had nuclear power and recycled their waste into additional fuel, the waste from that process would now be less hazardous (besides being buried) than uranium ore is today.
  
  The next question is "how long will the effects of climate change from the CO2 we are emitting last"? Those are the times to use in comparing coal to nuclear for power.
  
  For Paul: Not many will invest in nuclear recycling as long as it is illegal in the US, and as long as nuclear power is forbidden as it is in Wisconsin.
  
  I say we legalize it, tax CO2 emissions, and THEN see if people will invest in nuclear.
  Reply to this
  1. 3/5/2008 7:54 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     << Not many will invest in nuclear recycling as long as it is illegal in the US, and as long as nuclear power is forbidden as it is in Wisconsin.
     I say we legalize it, tax CO2 emissions, and THEN see if people will invest in nuclear.>>
     
     Overall I'm obviously not a fan of nuclear power.  However, if the subsidies are removed, recycling technology proves itself technically, and investors are willing to invest in it (includes the cost of long-term storage for the remaining fuel (which state are you thinking??), security costs (so that the idea passes our political process because people believe it is safe enough), and transportation costs), and all other external costs are being paid for at the time the energy is being used (probably via a federal tax shift from income to energy) then I probably wouldn't vote for it, but probably wouldn't be vehemently against it either.  We do need power that is CO2 free.  I reserve my right to not like some aspect of the plan and therefore oppose.  Likely candidates would be where is the long-term storage? and how safe is the end-to-end process?
     
     
     P.S. - please answer this question -->
     
          For all nuclear proponents - by what right would we build more nuclear plants now when we don't have long-term storage or reprocessing???????????
     
     Reply to this
• 3/5/2008 4:09 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  "let's have private investors implement a solution and prove it BEFORE building more nuclear power plants."
  
  That would be the prudent way, if there was no urgency. But I think the problem is growing too fast to be so cautious in dealing with it. We should move on both fronts at once.
  Reply to this
  1. 3/5/2008 8:09 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Sorry.  Fool me once........(you know the drill).  Nuclear power industry leaders squandered their opportunity to make something positive out of nuclear energy.  Greedy _________s.  A shame.
     
     The stakes are too high and I don't trust them.
     
     Determine what the external costs are up-front and pay them at the time the energy is used.
     
     **************************************
     From a July 2007 comment I made in According to 39 Senators, renewable includes nuclear
     
     Why is the nuclear industry in such a sorry state?
     If you want to assign blame for the current state of the nuclear power industry, look to the "have our nuclear cake and eat it to" officers, elected representatives, and regulators that failed to invest in technologies such as reprocessing and long-term storage.  But, maybe the reason they didn't invest is not because they were greedy, but because they knew that nuclear power was not economically viable.
     
     Bottom line
     I'm not anti-nuclear, we just need to be able to handle nuclear waste long-term and know how much it costs to store it.
     
     When reprocessing plants are operating that can handle the nuclear waste generated, and we have long-term storage for all of the 5% or so that is left over, and someone is willing to invest in this because it is economically viable (without subsidies)......go for it.
     Reply to this
• 3/5/2008 11:56 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Paul:
  
  "When reprocessing plants are operating that can handle the nuclear waste generated, and we have long-term storage for all of the 5% or so that is left over, and someone is willing to invest in this because it is economically viable (without subsidies)......go for it."
  
  And in the meantime we continue to build new coal power plants
  Reply to this
  1. 3/6/2008 12:28 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     We enact a phased-in, federal tax shift now to start recognizing external costs and we'll:
     
       - cut energy use;
       - stimulate the renewable energy industry and become a world leader in decentralized energy systems - for domestic use and export.
     
     Power the world.
     
     
     (you haven't answered my question yet................)
     Reply to this
• 3/6/2008 1:42 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Paul:
  "Why is the nuclear industry in such a sorry state?
  .... failed to invest in technologies such as reprocessing .... maybe the reason they didn't invest is not because they were greedy, but because they knew that nuclear power was not economically viable."
  
  Or maybe it was because President Jimmy Carter issued a Presidential Proclamation forbidding the re-processing of nuclear waste?
  
  When I was teaching at Edgewood College back in 1975 I heard an expert on energy, and the years since have proven that he was correct. He outlined the various energy options: solar, wind, bio, natural gas, coal and nuclear. He concluded that the choice for the next several decades came down to coal or nuclear. At that time some nuclear plants were being proposed for Wisconsin--and being strongly opposed by various (so called) environmental groups. He said that rejecting nuclear meant choosing coal, and that this was the worst choice. And this was even before the CO2/climate change connection was being considered; he was factoring in only the various other emissions from coal plus the mining problems (black lung disease) plus asthma and such.
  
  Look at the millions being spent to block Cape Wind, and in the State Journal today 3/6/08 letter to the editor about how those mean big corporations are trying to force dangerous wind turbines on little rural communities, and how they are organizing to fight back.
  
  And if we put the turbines where the wind does blow, it will means lots of new transmission lines to bring the power to Wisconsin. And the ATC case shows how much people love new power lines.
  
  If we ever do get non-CO2 energy of any kind, it will be done over the objections of "environmentalists" of the type that gave us coal and now want to block wind farms and power lines--but still warn against Global Warming.
  Reply to this
  1. 3/6/2008 9:40 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     I don't think we can lay the poor performance of the nuclear power industry at the feet of Jimmy Carter - there's much more to it than reprocessing.  And, if reprocessing is ready and has such benefits, why has there been so little discussion about our need to do it and change this law?
     
     Oh, if we could just turn the clock back to 1975....  The answer was NOT coal or nuclear.  It WAS us paying the full costs of our energy use at the time it was used.  We would not have the waste we have now, we would have much higher efficiency, and we would have booming renewable energy industry.
     
     Will there be a day when we say, "I wish we could turn the clock back to 2008?"  Beginning with that end in mind, what long-term solution really is best?
     
     "Environmentalists" fighting wind farms --> let's start paying the true costs of our energy use via a federal tax shift and watch them change their minds.
     Reply to this
• 3/6/2008 1:56 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << I think the proper question not "how long will the reactor waste be dangerous" but rather "how long before reactor waste is less dangerous than the original ore that it came from?" And if properly reprocessed, the answer is "several hundred years". >>
  
  This is an interesting argument---if you are correct on the technical facts. I say "if" not because I think you intentionally offer incorrect information, but because (a) I don't have time to research it for myself right now and, until I do, (b) it sounds too much like repeated industry propaganda.
  
  I have caught the "dirty-power industries" stating things that simply were not true. For instance, I heard a coal flack tell an audience that "only 3% of global mercury emissions are from man made sources." He was trying to mitigate the objection to coal because of it's mercury emissions. He may truly believe that coal share is only 3%, but the USGS says he's off---way off. The coal industry is the number 1 mercury polluter, most of global mercury emissions are from man made sources, and mercury contamination has reached nearly every part of the globe. That sort of lie, unfortunately, usually goes unchallenged.
  
  But for the sake of argument, let's assume your statement is correct. It might lessen the danger aspect of nuclear waste, but that assumes society remains stable and does the right thing for at least a few centuries. Civilizations' records in this regard are not good. The citizens of each era have always had a hard time imagining their epoch ending or degrading radically, but it seems to happen a lot! Right now, we are hurtling toward the end of the tracks, and I don't know how well the train comes to a stop after the tracks end.
  
  I'll stick with my assertion that if we too the vast amounts of money we're putting into oil, coal, and nuclear and put them instead into (1) solar and wind power (particularly the latter) (2) the grid, and (3) efficiency measures ... all coal plants could be offline 20 years from now, with no new nuclear plants built, and we would be better off for it. The fact that solar and wind are a minuscule part of the generation matrix now is only because we're not trying very hard and advocates for those technologies don't seem to have the muscle wielded by the dominant dinosaur technologies.
  
  In this vision, I'm picking technologies. But in Jim's vision, he's doing that too. In Paul's vision, he wants to tax dirty power and let the market work it out, which I think would also be OK, as long as we assign ALL of the external costs---like DOE and DOD costs associated with nuclear infrastructure, inspection, and waste management---into the estimated cost of the end product.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 3/7/2008 9:15 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Paul wants to tax "dirty power" where he decides what is "dirty". I say tax GHG, since that is the cause of the problem. Then legalize recycling of nuclear waste into new fuel. THEN let the market decide.
  
  And when costs are considered, add in the cost of transmission lines from where the sun shines (for solar) and/or from where the wind blows, to where the power is used in those cloudy relatively calm Great Lakes regions. Or else the cost of whatever means of power transmission you want to develop if you don't want transmission lines--maybe hydrogen or superconducting underground lines, or whatever.
  
  Or else build the nuclear plants near where the power is used, as we did 40 years ago.
  
  As to why reprocessing of waste is not even considered in the discussion in the US, while it is actually being done elsewhere, I don't know why. But I am trying to get it included
  Reply to this
  1. 3/8/2008 2:01 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     <<Paul wants to tax "dirty power" where he decides what is "dirty". >>
     
     Well, not really.  I want to enact a federal tax shift that will lower income taxes and raise taxes on non-renewable energy.  We need to be paying the external costs of all our energy use at the time we use it.  Since the external costs of non-renewable energy that are not being paid are many times greater than those for renewable energy we have an easy solution - higher taxes on non-renewables.
     
     The external costs of non-renewable energy includes things like health problems from air pollution, the costs we've decided to pay in an attempt to secure oil in the short-term via war, and costs related to global warming from drought (e.g., higher electricity costs when nuclear and fossil fueled plants need to shut down because of low water levels), flooding, and premature deaths due to hotter temps (e.g., in 2003, the fourth hottest year since 1880,  35,000 Europeans died).
     
     As long as government subsidies are only used for research and development, the good news is that costs such as transmission distance ARE included in the market.  This favors decentralized systems, which favors renewable energy.
     
     Reply to this
• 3/8/2008 12:02 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Mark says:
  
  << Readers may be interested in a couple of articles I wrote on the subject of hypocrisy:
  On the left:
  http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/03-13/environmental-hypocrites.htm
  On the right:
  http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/06-21/environmental-hypocrisy.htm >>
  
  ************************
  
  Hi,
  
  Very good, but 3 comments. On the first, good to bring up US population growth. But you failed to point out that today it is driven mostly by immigration.
  
  http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
  
  In part two, you could add that abortions reduce population growth and thus are Green.
  
  And you link asthma and allergy to GMO foods. But no such link has been established has it. In fact, one GMO project is to make an allergen free peanut. The the problem with growing them would be possible contamination by the pollen of organic peanuts
  
  Reply to this
• 3/9/2008 7:48 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << On the first, good to bring up US population growth. But you failed to point out that today it is driven mostly by immigration. >>
  
  Right. There are always choices to be made when writing an article lest it turn into a book. The main reason for our lax immigration policy is that it's really a cheap-labor policy---and that would be a long article all by itself! I'm all for combating illegal immigration---and all of the other negatives that go along with the plutocrats' global-free-trade mania.
  
  The eco-NGOs are not very active on ANY facet of population issues, so the reasons for US population growth, while relevant to a discussion focused on population, were really not the point of that particular article. The point was that the NGOs need to start talking about population, period. Without addressing population growth, all environmental improvements are temporary.
  
  
  << In part two, you could add that abortions reduce population growth and thus are Green. >>
  
  Hmm, not sure what you're driving at here. I would argue that no one wants abortions, and the quickest way to reduce the number of abortions is to have more aggressive family-planning programs, effective anti-teen-pregnancy programs (not just abstinence-only pap), and easy availability of "oops drugs" like the morning after pill (which is NOT an abortion pill). Most conservatives have fought such measures every step of the way and thus have actually helped cause an increase in the number of abortions.
  
  
  << And you link asthma and allergy to GMO foods. But no such link has been established>>
  
  People's allergic reactions to some corn products a few years back was what tipped off regulators that StarLink corn had gotten into the food supply by mistake.
  
  More generally, despite reassurances from Monsanto and others that GMOs are safe, reports come out regularly on research questioning the safety of GMOs, both for humans and other creatures in the environment. And that doesn't include any negative research suppressed by and other companies (because it didn't give the wanted result).
  
  I am planning an article on GMO risks. My concerns are not based on hysteria.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 3/9/2008 12:38 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Jim wrote:
  << Look at the millions being spent to block Cape Wind, and in the State Journal today 3/6/08 letter to the editor about how those mean big corporations are trying to force dangerous wind turbines on little rural communities, and how they are organizing to fight back. >>
  
  NIMBYs usually fight ANYTHING that someone's trying to put near them. Sometimes their efforts are sensible; sometimes pigheaded.
  
  Please define "dangerous wind turbines"...
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 3/9/2008 7:54 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  The letter in the WSJ called wind turbines "dangerous" because no study has proven that they are not.
  
  That is the same "logic" used against Starlink. And you have the story on that just backwards. It was determined by monitoring tests that some of the "unapproved for human consumption" Starlink corn had found its way into the food supply. Then some people claimed to have had an allergic reaction to it. But follow up testing on those individuals demonstrated that they were not allergic to it.
  
  http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/starlink.html
  
  Bottom line: many people (thousands? millions?) ate Starlink corm by mistake. But there were no cases of any harm done.
  
  To me, that sounds like evidence that it is NOT harmful.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment