US legislator proposes a carbon tax

Byoliveridley

Of course, he’s not serious. Dingell (D – Auto Industry) floats a carbon tax proposal for the US that is sure to be shot down.

Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax – New York Times

A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.

The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.

But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.

Similar Posts

  • Acrolein Main Cigarette Culprit?

    Byoliveridley

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Cigarettes’ Smoking Gun?

    Acrolein, one of the 4,000 constituents of cigarette smoke, has been found unexpectedly to cause DNA damage in the gene for the infamous tumor-suppressor p53, which is often disrupted by cancer. In particular, the pattern of DNA mutations caused by acrolein mimics what is often found in human lung cancer samples (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0607031103).

    “If cigarette smoke is the weapon that causes lung cancer, then these mutations are fingerprints on the knife,” says author Moon-shong Tang of New York University School of Medicine, in Tuxedo. Tang was also involved in identifying another cigarette-smoke component that can induce such mutations: a metabolite of a polycyclic hydrocarbon called benzo[a]pyrene. Acrolein is present in cigarette smoke in levels of up to 1,000 times greater than benzo[a]pyrene.

    So, if you remove acrolein from tobacco smoke, does that make for a much safer smoking experience? Is this a research question worth answering? FYI, I watched Thank You for Smoking last night, so, fresh on my mind!

  • Nanoparticles the new asbestos?

    Byoliveridley

    I am sure everyone has heard about the wonders of nanotechnology, but what about the other side?

    ScienceDaily: Tiny Inhaled Particles Take Easy Route From Nose To Brain

    In a continuing effort to find out if the tiniest airborne particles pose a health risk, University of Rochester Medical Center scientists showed that when rats breathe in nano-sized materials they follow a rapid and efficient pathway from the nasal cavity to several regions of the brain, according to a study in the August issue of Environmental Health Perspectives

    There was a time when asbestos was the wonder material, malleable and fire resistant, capable of being woven into sheets, and being incorporated into buildings for fire retardation. Unfortunately, many cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma later, not so wonderful. Asbestos is a special case because the fibers started out big and would keep breaking down into smaller particles till they reached that magic size range between 0.1 and 1-2 um where they could stay suspended in the air for a long time, and also take advantage of the lungs’ inability to filter particles that size to any great degree of efficiency.

    Nanoparticles are an order of magnitude smaller, and hence behave more like gases. They may  also contain choice toxic heavy metals such as manganese which are not usually floating around in the air at these small sizes. So, this study is a little scary, especially for the folks in the manufacturing end of things, these miracle particles seem to be going straight to the brain. Traditional masks and air handling systems are not designed to filter such fine particles, so I am sure they’re floating around in the air waiting to be breathed in.

    Update 9:00 AM, 8-3-2006
    Well, I swear, I did not see this before I wrote this morning!

    The question of the day, however, is are they safe for humans and other living things? Earlier this year, Andrew Seaton, A U.K. scientist who was the lead author of a 2004 report investigating the saftey of nanotechnological materials raised a bit of a ruckus by comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos fibers. Asbestos once had its day in the sun as an all-purpose wonder material. But then we learned that tiny asbestos fibers, once ingested by the human body, could be extremely deadly. Carbon nanotubes: also easy to ingest, and exquisitely capable of penetrating cell structures. Could they be equally toxic?

  • Nissan goes electric

    Byoliveridley

    Nissan Shows Off Its Electric Car, the Leaf – NYTimes.com

    What, no Canada? But still,  an electric hatchback, hits all my buttons and dings all my dongs! I only hope to keep my current, explosion powered hatchback long enough to not buy one ever again. Price, of course, will be a consideration. The good news is that Nissan is considering leasing the battery instead of people having to buy it up front, a great idea, not as great as the battery instant replace model from Shai Agassi and Better Place, but one that lessens the battery buying burden.

    The future is electric.

  • Energy efficiency, electricity, power plants

    Byoliveridley

    Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.

    Well, that’s pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it’s able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.

    Energy efficiency, electricity, power plants | Salon News

    There are some things you wish you could have written, and the first paragraph is one of those. Romm nails it. Clearly, the most efficient MW of electricity is the one that was never used. But unless utilities are paid to conserve, not paid to produce, they will always build, build build.

    Excellent summary of arguments he makes all the time over at the gristmill. Now to find out what BC does. Canada is one of the worst in terms of energy use per capita. Some of it can be linked to the cold climate, but Germany is plenty cold too, and uses a third less per person.

    This article compares BC and California and finds BCHydro lacking in its incentives to save. The key is “decoupling”

    Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called “decoupling.”

    BC’s per capita energy consumption is 0.26, well below the Canadian average and on the decline as Canada as a whole is getting worse. But more can be done.

    The key value judgment to be made here is that reducing energy use benefits all of us. The system should be set up in such a way that it benefits the utility as well. This way, they’re on the same side.

    Also, while a carbon tax is all well and good, it is not sufficient. Energy efficiency requires investment up front and people would rather pay 50 bucks a year in carbon tax than pay 300 bucks up front to insulate their homes better and save a 100 bucks a year in energy costs. Rebates only work if you have money up front. Giving people a $100 check is nice, but only if they spend it on improving energy efficiency. But, it’sjust money and we all know that money gets spent (beer, beer beer!) Subsidies work better as they reduce the cost of things. I would rather buy 10 compact fluorescent lamps for a buck each with the government chipping in the extra 10 bucks than get it back at the end of the year as a rebate, or pay 20c extra per incandescent lamp as a carbon tax.

    All rambling aside, a really good article on the value of energy efficiency.

  • Fish good for You? – this byline stinks

    Byoliveridley

    BBC NEWS | Health | Benefits of fish ‘outweigh risks’

    Dariush Mozaffarian, lead author of the study said: “Overall, for major health outcomes among adults, the benefits of eating fish greatly outweigh the risks.

    “Somehow this evidence has been lost on the public.”

    Concerns have been raised about chemicals found in fish from pollution.

    These include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins.

    And in other news, “breathing is good for you”. Please, I can’t take this any more. The question is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, “Is fish good for you?”. Of course it is. The question is: “What kind of fish is good for you, and whether appropriate labeling can help the consumer decide”.

    At least in the US of A, which is where I have eaten the bulk of my fish, the primary source of information you can get about eating fish is on the web and for North Carolina, here. So, you’re supposed to go around with a checklist of good and bad fish in your head when you go to the grocery store. Most consumers do not have this kind of information, especially when there are so many categories to choose from. Is it fatty, or non? Is it freshwater or marine? Is it canned, fresh or frozen? Is it caught or farmed? Canned light tuna is okay, but canned albacore tuna is not, can you remember this when shopping for 30 other things at the store?

    Confused enough? How about, tilefish at 3.99 a pound versus salmon at 7.99 a pound? What will you buy on a tight budget?

    If you’re the average consumer, you have a minute to decide whether it’s fish for dinner, or something else, unless you’re carrying around this handy checklist in your hand/PDA (in which case you’re not the average consumer), you have two opposing thoughts in your head….

    1. I know that fish is good for me, so I need to eat more fish
    2. I know that certain fish is not good for me, especially if I’m pregnant/nursing/feeding kids – But I don’t know if this fish that’s on sale is on the safe list, or not.

    What will you do given that you have one minute to decide, you have no information in the store, and you have no one in the store looking out for you?

    And this paper wonders, and I paraphrase,

    “Somehow this evidence has been lost on the public”

    Labeling is important, information is power, if you’re buying fish, you want to know where it is from, what the average pollutant loadings of the fish from this area are, and what the advisory on this fish is, so you can make an informed choice in the one minute that you have. This has been widely researched, and the information is easily available (on the web, where you don’t shop for groceries). Is it too much to ask for a list to be posted wherever fish is sold? I guess it “hurts business”.

    Personal responsibilty is accepted, but if you do not give people the tools to make informed choices, it’s just a cynical ploy to shift blame, shift burden, and shift risk.

    This paper deserves to be read in full, so here’s the abstract. Needless to say, the study, funded in full by tax payer money through the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, is behind a subscription wall.

    Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health

    Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits

    Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH; Eric B. Rimm, ScD

    JAMA. 2006;296:1885-1899.

    ABSTRACT

    Context  Fish (finfish or shellfish) may have health benefits and also contain contaminants, resulting in confusion over the role of fish consumption in a healthy diet.

    Evidence Acquisition  We searched MEDLINE, governmental reports, and meta-analyses, supplemented by hand reviews of references and direct investigator contacts, to identify reports published through April 2006 evaluating (1) intake of fish or fish oil and cardiovascular risk, (2) effects of methylmercury and fish oil on early neurodevelopment, (3) risks of methylmercury for cardiovascular and neurologic outcomes in adults, and (4) health risks of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish. We concentrated on studies evaluating risk in humans, focusing on evidence, when available, from randomized trials and large prospective studies. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to characterize benefits and risks most precisely.

    Evidence Synthesis  Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval, 0%-32%; P = .046) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes. Intake of 250 mg/d of EPA and DHA appears sufficient for primary prevention. DHA appears beneficial for, and low-level methylmercury may adversely affect, early neurodevelopment. Women of childbearing age and nursing mothers should consume 2 seafood servings/wk, limiting intake of selected species. Health effects of low-level methylmercury in adults are not clearly established; methylmercury may modestly decrease the cardiovascular benefits of fish intake. A variety of seafood should be consumed; individuals with very high consumption (≥5 servings/wk) should limit intake of species highest in mercury levels. Levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish are low, and potential carcinogenic and other effects are outweighed by potential benefits of fish intake and should have little impact on choices or consumption of seafood (women of childbearing age should consult regional advisories for locally caught freshwater fish).

    Conclusions  For major health outcomes among adults, based on both the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks. For women of childbearing age, benefits of modest fish
    intake, excepting a few selected species, also outweigh risks.

  • BC Carbon Tax regressive?

    Byoliveridley

    British Columbians with low incomes will benefit from the carbon tax in its first year, but will pay more by the scheme’s third year, a new study concludes.

    The impact of the tax and its offsetting income tax cuts will become increasingly unequal unless the provincial government increases payments to low-income earners, the study says.

    The study, by Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Toby Sanger, senior economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, takes a detailed look at the fairness of the controversial tax.

    via Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later :: News :: thetyee.ca

    The report makes some good points. Revenue neutrality (the offsetting of carbon taxes with income/corporate tax cuts) has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. If I were to redesign this tax, I would do as the report says, increase rebates to lower income people, reduce corporate tax cuts so that the resulting revenue can be used to fund more transit infrastructure, energy efficiency infrastructure and the building of a low carbon economy.

    A carbon tax in itself is not sufficient to reduce emissions. It does its part, but building an energy efficient, low carbon infrastructure will do a lot more and the money’s there, just use it.

    You can read the whole report here.