Was this the first congress to pass a bill that wasn't read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Printable View
Was this the first congress to pass a bill that wasn't read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Another fail about implying that this would happen in the United States, is that a lot of the energy proposals concerning "green" jobs here count jobs that would be created from efficiency gains.
Think simple tax deductions (subsidies) for, say, weatherizing existing buildings. This kind of job wasn't looked at in that paper, that focused solely on electrical production.
Just about any economist who studies this stuff will tell you the best "bang" for the buck comes from simply encouraging efficiency.
Another fail for this study is that it didn't account for what I consider an almost certain rise in the cost of competing forms of energy, such as oil and coal. One has to consider, in any cost to benefit analysis, differing potential outcomes, or how sensitive your model is to changes in your starting assumptions.
Consideration of the effects of changes on the starting assumption was not done in this study.
If one were to roll forward say, five years, and the cost of coal were to double, Spain would be in a very good position to benefit from that because of its investment in photovoltaic cells, which have a productive lifespan of 30+ years, with little to no maintenance.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/pa...s/wklyspot.jpg
What I see here is that demand for coal was starting to well out-strip supply until the global downturn. Bear in mind that US production, although not exactly world production, but this price spike in US coal was reflective of global supplies.
Here is an analyst who noted a similar trend that supports my conclusiont that coal supplies were not keeping up with demand in the spike period above.
Current prices for coal will continue to drop during the global economic downturn.
BUT
What happens when the global economy picks up, as it will eventually?
Supplies will not change markedly, and with the collapse in price, companies will not be putting money into deloping new sources. Existing seams will be slightly depleted, and not fully replaced.
So with an economic upturn, i.e. increased demand, coupled with decreased supply, you will see a pretty large spike in the price of coal, along with oil for that matter.
Compare competitiveness:
Country A invests in renewables and efficiency while energy is relatively cheap, decreasing reliance on coal energy.
Country B invests in coal, because it is cheaper relatively, and does nothing, locking itself into coal energy for 30 years for each coal power plant it builds in this time.
Fast forward to economic upturn. Cost of coal and oil skyrocket.
Which country's manufacturing base will benefit more?
One other thing to consider:
Costs of construction currently are cheap, due to slack demand.
It is cheaper to invest in renewable power plants than it will be when the economy picks up, and you are competing for construction firms with private industry.
RG,
What affect do you think taxing carbon emissions will have, especially during a recession?
It would have the primary effect of shifting economic resources from carbon-dependent sources of energy, to carbon independent sources of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The secondary effects would be that of encouraging efficiency, and job losses in the sectors of the economy most dependent on carbon-intensive (read: electricity) forms of energy, with gains in sectors of the economy that provide alternatives to carbon-intensive energy.
It would also have the effect of increasing the cost of energy in the short term. This would have the individual effect of decreasing disposable income, and likely reducing demand for imported goods on the macro-economic level.
Whether or not it would mean a net job loss is unknown, although more likely not in my opinion.
Based on the study presented in the OP however, my guess as to the scope of the losses would be that the ultimate net job loss would be rather minor, as such a tax would allow the free market to allocate capital to the best, cheapest alternative.
Spain's model allocated capital specifically to one of the least efficient alternatives to carbon-intensive energy, i.e. solar photovoltaic.
Their experience in re-allocating capital to renewables can therefore be considered as something of a "worst-case" scenario.
If the 9:4 ratio is therefore the upper boundary of the scope of net job losses, then any allocation of capital that is more market-based, MUST result in a lower net job loss.
if green was profitable someone would already be doing it.
But I don't think that's the environmentalist's argument.
I think supporters of green tech are saying that even though its not profitable right now, given enough subsidies it will be profitable in the future. and that is important.
So long term its going to be worth it, even though short term it isn't.
The problem of course is that people live in the short term and the environmentalists have no way of proving that green technology will ever be more efficient.
that's a problem and is obviously going to piss people off who have lost their jobs.
It is worth noting however, that the Obama administration's proposals have consistently stressed that allocating capital resources toward the MOST efficient alternative energy source, i.e. simple energy efficiency, would suggest the scope of net losses be rather small, especially given the Spanish data.
It is also worth noting that much of the net losses occurred because the photovoltaic construction boom coincided with a housing boom and historically high energy prices, both substantially driving up the costs of construction and reducing the ultimate measure of cost per unit of energy.
Since, in the current climate, construction of say, wind farms, large-scale solar plants of all types, or distributed solar, would have available to it a lot of construction labor and resources more cheaply than during an economic upturn.
Given that there is a probability of a net long term gain to the economy, simply because of the very probable increase in cost of carbon-based energy, even if we did nothing, this would seem to be an extremely good long term investment, because modifying our energy mix during a recession would be cheaper than it would be otherwise.
Oddly enough, the study in the OP actually would seem to support the current administrations plans to a great degree for these reasons, i.e. the opportunity cost for switching now is likely very low, if not outright positive in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Good point.
(bookmarking page for when we discuss healthcare)
Compare competitiveness:Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Country A invests in renewables and efficiency while energy is relatively cheap, decreasing reliance on coal energy.
Country B invests in coal, because it is cheaper relatively, and does nothing, locking itself into coal energy for 30 years for each coal power plant it builds in this time.
Fast forward to economic upturn. Cost of coal and oil skyrocket.
Which country's manufacturing base will benefit more?
-----------------
Further, costs of any manufactured good, such as say, wind turbines, or solar panels, come down simply because of economies of scale, making them more cost competitive to alternatives.
Add to this the increases in efficiency of photovoltaics in the last years, and some rather tantilizing research that hold the potential of increasing this even more, and a good case can be made.
I think the solar thermal (solar concentrating) technology that is currently under development has the potential to be a game-breaker that has the potential for actually being cost competitive with coal under CURRENT conditions.
If nuclear were profitable, someone would already be doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Just to tweak the nuke-crowd's nose... :p: