So yet another utopian grift extended to the detriment of the objectives professed. Progressives are a hoot. Turns out they would be better off using their energies and illlgotten gains to mine lithium.
Europe can handle much higher gas taxes than the US (e.g. $3.39 per gallon in Netherlands) because they have dense cities with good transit. We should make all transport-related federal payments to cities dependent on them adopting zoning that legalizes dense housing.
High gasoline prices are good. Period. If you are a policy wonk, which I am. What will be interesting is to see if there is anything new in how the current gasoline price increase affects demand. Clearly, there is one MAJOR new margin along which elasticity can operate. People used to say, "Well, no matter how much gas costs, you still have to get to work." No more. I am waiting for the data to come in to show if high gas prices really bite along the work-at-home/work-in-the-office margin.
Super read again, Matt. My only question is “Wasn’t the Keystone pipeline stopped because of the possibility of harmful toxins polluting the Indians’ water?”, not for trying to limit supply. I studied Environmental Engineering in the 80’s and wrote a successful Climate Change curriculum for 6th graders. Unfortunately, after a few years our state legislature decided it was more important for them to learn simple machines.
I have a question. If ninety percent of retired coal fired generation has been replaced with natural gas fired generation while the remaining ten percent includes other things besides wind and solar renewables who is complementing who? Gas can be used as base load. Solar only for peak load absent energy storage. Which the solar people strenuously object from being obligated to include in their projects.
Dave is wrong. And he got very angry and blocked me because he did not like me explaining in detail why he was wrong. That didn't change the facts of course. He remains wrong. Probably one of the dumbest things any environmental activist proposes is the whole idea of "keeping it in the ground". Apparently they are under the impression that all extracted oil and gas is burnt. It is not. A huge and increasing percentage is used to make pretty much everything. And if you keep it in the ground you are not simply eliminating CO2 you are also eliminating synthetic fibers (most of our clothes), plastics, rubber and every other thing made with petrochemicals. Almost nothing that is made today does not include those very petrochemicals.
Mind you Matthew was also wrong to assert that domestic production would make the US independent of Middle East or any other kind of oil. What's in a barrel of oil you ask? Depends on grade of course but primary distillation dictates what you can extract or make downstream from those fractions. It does not matter whether or not the US produces more barrels of oil than it uses in aggregate. When it comes to gasoline it matters that the extracted fraction that the US needs to make gasoline matches supply to demand. And it hasn't done that for a long time. The last major refinery built in the US with full downstream processing capabilities was built in 1977. Now the industry has labored to increase the throughput of existing facilities with amazing success. But they are at their limit. When you see a utilization graph that says they're consistently above 95 percent utilization that should tell you something. Barring imports you are one or two unanticipated shutdowns away from a severe gas shortage. And those imports come from the international markets. There is no way to insulate yourself from the world.
Should we look into ending sanctions on Venezuela and Iran? Maybe we should focus on the most dangerous geopolitical foe save the second tier players for later?
What's your take on what we should do with subsidies for oil and gas at a time like this? If the current subsidies aren't enough to overcome Wall Street's desire for "capital discipline," what might actually work?
I used to think "a carbon tax can't really be that unpopular, can it?"
Then the American people were like "we will send an army of wife-beaters to the Senate if that's what it takes to lower gas prices" and it all made sense to me...
Cap and trade and carbon prices seems hopelessly doomed if it couldn't happen under Obama, but I dunno maybe you're correct fiscal constraints could lead to it again in the future. Kinda makes sense for carbon removal/capture if that becomes a thing. Be kind of funny if by the time it gets there, there's a counter argument about admin and how rapidly a certain industry is decarbonizing and the inlays it produces.
This may be a dumb comment, but I don't get the idea behind a carbon tax. If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what? Go out and buy a Ford F-150 Lightning that doesn't exist because it takes years for production capability to go up? Switch my electricity sourcing from fossil fuels to renewables (assuming I have that tool at hand) where the renewables are dependent on new wind/solar/etc capacity being built, with all the attendant transmission and grid issues that need to be worked out?
Sure, price signals work over time, at least to some degree. But what's the logic of imposing large costs now on consumers that won't yield benefits for years and years? Unless it's only to reduce consumption -- don't go on that family trip and move your thermostat down in the winter. In other words, vote Republican.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get it.
"If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what?" There is a solution to this, the carbon fee and dividend. It puts the tax back into consumers pockets. To get started you will probably spend the dividend on gas and heating. But carbon-free products will now be cheaper. So the carbon fee and dividend incentivizes using less carbon. So you get the best of two worlds: The right incentives and long-term consequence from the tax, but without hurting consumers due to the dividend.
If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what?"
I don't know about you in particular (Do you own a home or rent? What's your commute like? Do you have the option to work from home?), but people in general would do the same things they already do when prices go up. The simplest is to consume/travel less since that doesn't require buying anything. That's basically the short-term effect.
For longer term, it does impact people's purchases. That doesn't necessary mean running out and buying an electric car (altho that is an option). For people who own houses, it could mean getting a home energy audit (which is subsidized by many utilities --- at least in the US) and doing some air sealing/insulating on their house (likely much less expensive than a new car). Renters don't have as many options for increasing heating/cooling efficiency (there are some --- e.g. window wraps/films), but renters have mobility that could help in other ways (e.g. moving closer to work for a shorter commute, moving to a newer or more efficient apartment, etc.)
As others pointed out, getting more efficient appliances or HVAC is another option. In most cases, this probably means buying something more efficient when the existing appliance breaks. (Replacing a working appliance probably isn't cost effective unless it's super inefficient.)
I made no comment on what American voters would sign up for. Those are some actions that reduce energy usage in general. If energy prices go up, those actions can save money regardless for the reason of higher energy costs.
Sure, my question that you quoted seemed to be centered on how would consumers respond to higher prices and it's true that they would respond to them by, e.g., doing some of the things you lay out.
But that's in the abstract. What's key is that the voters would never never never willingly sign up for that regimen.
Imagine a politician campaigning on the pledge to raise gas taxes five cents.
IOW, let's look in a different solution set than carbon taxes until we can replace the American electorate with another one more amendable to carbon taxes.
Yes: you, Matt, and I all agree that voters won't go for it. If you wanted to make that point in your post, it would have been useful to mention voters at least once --- and how they won't go for it --- instead of asking how consumers could respond to increased prices.
Relating is helpful in this regard, and not at all complicated. Take total tax receipts, divide by total eligibility number of people = rebate. Maybe a slight adjsutment for pop density etc.
The idea is yes, you do all those things, but by knowing the expense is coming you don't buy efficient things only if you happen to replace it during a spike in energy prices.
The flat rebate should ensure you as a lower than average user have some extra resources to mitigate the cost increase. Yes it is tough if you are an above average energy user with below average income. Maybe in certain circumstances a separate program could target those rural areas to help a bit. But if not, maybe your lifestyle is unsustainable.
If your natural gas heating costs are high enough, then you’re incentivized to switch to a heat pump.
Similarly for your water heating, stove, gas dryer, etc. Home electrification is a practical and helpful step for folks, especially if we incentivize it.
A carbon tax should start small and slowely ramp up to give you time to do these things before the cost gets too steep. Basically so that you have the incentive to replace with more efficient when you were going to replace anyway instead of forcing a premature change, but you know higher prices are coming so you should be willing to pay a bit more now, knowing the return will be there. And if you don't, don't complain then about the higher prices.
Also a rebated carbon tax does not remove any money from the economy, unlike higher priced imports.
The biggest benefit of renting is that you're much more mobile than if you own. So renters could, for example, move somewhere with more efficient heating or appliances. Or they could move for a shorter commute.
I've only owned a house for a few years now, and I actually think it would be a lot easier for me to become more efficient as a renter. Now that I own a house, if I want more efficient appliances, I need to go out and buy them. When I rented, I could have just moved to a newer apartment. (For whatever reason, I kept ending up in old buildings. I got pretty good at installing window wrap...)
Why it is slow, when people rent a place they will take into account utilities when figuring what rent is worth. Thatbisnalso an area regulation would have leverage over. "Rental appliances shall be energy star rated if utilities are charged to tenant's" would probably work. Landlord can either upgrade or inrnalize the cost by including utilities.
I don't get this. (Again, I'm going to put aside the rebate question; my belief is that people will feel the taxes a lot more than they'll appreciate any check they get from the government.)
If the initial tax is very small, I as a consumer won't do very much, except feel somewhat irritated. Now maybe on the margin I might decide to get an electric induction stove rather than a gas one, but if the electricity is still dirty my doing so has no benefit and I guess I'm somehow continuing to pay the carbon tax on that dirty electricity. How is my choice of an electric stove pushing the grid away from fossil fuels?*
As for paying dollars now so I'll be incentivized down the road to change my behavior and to seek out lower-carbon alternatives. . . well, that doesn't accord with any human psychology I'm familiar with.
* What will change that, as many jurisdictions are doing, is to forbid gas hookups in new construction, and mandating a higher % of renewables in future electricity generation. But there's no tax and there's no assumption that consumer behavior is having some long-range and delayed effect on these types of decisions.
Re: "if the electricity is still dirty my doing so has no benefit and I guess I'm somehow continuing to pay the carbon tax on that dirty electricity. How is my choice of an electric stove pushing the grid away from fossil fuels?"
Yes, the short-term price elasticity of energy use is much lower than the long-term price elasticity. But utilities will be paying the same carbon tax as you and if the tax has scheduled annual increases (as all sensible carbon taxes do, such as the carbon fee and dividend plan of HR 2307), then they will alter their long-term investments to minimize total generating costs, which means using much less fossil fuels than without a carbon tax. Likewise for industry, housing (whether owner-occupied or rental), transportation, etc.
You're not "paying dollars now so I'll be incentivized down the road to change my behavior and to seek out lower-carbon alternatives," you're paying a small fee now, that will probably only reduce your emissions a little, but it's the larger fees in the future that are your incentive to change your future behavior. If that "doesn't accord with any human psychology I'm familiar with," why do market economies outperform command and control economies all over the world?
Banning gas hook-ups in new buildings is good where it's politically possible but only an economy-wide carbon tax will efficiently reduce emissions in every sector. Mandating an increasing percentage of renewables in electricity generation is much less efficient than a carbon tax (and most of the politicians that are vehemently against pricing carbon are just as vehemently against such mandates).
I do not have the statistics on this but an important thing to consider is that households are not the entirety of energy usage. Large entities think more long-term, have liquidity to finance investments in reducing their energy expenditures, etc.
yes, like the utility that generates the electricity to power his induction stove. People underestimate the efficacy of even modest carbon taxes to reduce emissions from the power sector:
Then if you don't react the first time, you will the next time when it is steeper.
Electrifying demand is neccisary to reduce FF use. Even if thebelectrical supply is not shifted at the exact moment the demand is, it will be ready as it is. Electrical demand has to be there to be able to decarbonise current non-electrical users.
It's too simple to say "all the electric cars are sold out" so there's nothing to do here. Even assuming no one takes transit or otherwise reduces driving, higher prices encourage sales of more fuel-efficient cars. Replacing SUVs with Corollas doesn't get us to zero, but it does help.
Yep. Buying a small car or a hybrid is probably a bigger carbon reduction bang for the buck than buying an EV.
Also, according to a review in Car and Driver, the F-150 Lightning works great - until you actually use it as a truck. Carrying a full payload or towing a trailer drags the battery range down to under 100 miles.
This take is rational- too rational. Opposing domestic oil production is not a rational proposal, it's an emotional one. (To be clear, I think there is value in both emotion and rationality, generally speaking.) Activist groups are not purposely advocating for something they know is ineffective in order to keep raking in dough. They simply think oil is bad, so we should leave more of it in the ground. Something like if someone is opposed to pornography, they think people should stop producing it, even if someone else will pop up and fill the demand anyway. Tweets like the one from Roberts are just a post-hoc rationalization of one's emotional opposition to oil, period.
You are spot on about much objection to domestic oil being emotional. Emotional reasoning also seems to lead to more motivated reasoning so activists are going to find some way to reason that cutting domestic oil production will have a big difference and that if oil prices go up people won’t start voting for politicians that will lower gas prices and don’t care about climate change
The supply-side climate activists' biggest success hasn't been defeating any single project. It has been convincing Wall Street not to finance hydrocarbon exploration and extraction. US oil companies aren't doing much exploration for new oil currently. They don't want to have any new, expensive projects on their books, because when the price of oil drops they won't have anyone to finance them during the downturn. The oil industry has been told they are a dying industry, and dying industries don't invest money in new projects, they return it to their shareholders. If the Democrats were seriously concerned about how gas prices will affect them electorally, Biden, Schumer, and all the regulatory appointees would signal to Wall Street that it is okay to finance oil companies. Or, they would pass legislation that provides *a lot* of funding to CO2 capture and sequestration research, and would start directly funding the burial and sequestration of CO2. This would tell oil companies (and Wall Street) that they will still exist in 20 years, and it is okay to begin new projects right now.
One of my Afghan friends got all excited ablut Elon Musk's lithium tweets and tweeted back at him to come invest in Afghanistan, because a decade ago the US government was talking up possible lithium resources in the alkaline lakes of Ghazni. Unfortunately USGS checked this out and the quantities aren't economically recoverable... Afghanistan's mineral wealth turns out to be mainly propaganda.
The security situation is much better now than during the occupation, at least in Ghazni. I think US companies would invest if Biden gave clear indications that he wanted them to, which wouldn't be that controversial if it were for lithium mining specifically. In any case the Chinese will develop those sites if they're viable, but it seems they aren't.
So yet another utopian grift extended to the detriment of the objectives professed. Progressives are a hoot. Turns out they would be better off using their energies and illlgotten gains to mine lithium.
Anyone tired of performative activism yet?
Europe can handle much higher gas taxes than the US (e.g. $3.39 per gallon in Netherlands) because they have dense cities with good transit. We should make all transport-related federal payments to cities dependent on them adopting zoning that legalizes dense housing.
High gasoline prices are good. Period. If you are a policy wonk, which I am. What will be interesting is to see if there is anything new in how the current gasoline price increase affects demand. Clearly, there is one MAJOR new margin along which elasticity can operate. People used to say, "Well, no matter how much gas costs, you still have to get to work." No more. I am waiting for the data to come in to show if high gas prices really bite along the work-at-home/work-in-the-office margin.
Super read again, Matt. My only question is “Wasn’t the Keystone pipeline stopped because of the possibility of harmful toxins polluting the Indians’ water?”, not for trying to limit supply. I studied Environmental Engineering in the 80’s and wrote a successful Climate Change curriculum for 6th graders. Unfortunately, after a few years our state legislature decided it was more important for them to learn simple machines.
SallyJones
I have a question. If ninety percent of retired coal fired generation has been replaced with natural gas fired generation while the remaining ten percent includes other things besides wind and solar renewables who is complementing who? Gas can be used as base load. Solar only for peak load absent energy storage. Which the solar people strenuously object from being obligated to include in their projects.
Dave is wrong. And he got very angry and blocked me because he did not like me explaining in detail why he was wrong. That didn't change the facts of course. He remains wrong. Probably one of the dumbest things any environmental activist proposes is the whole idea of "keeping it in the ground". Apparently they are under the impression that all extracted oil and gas is burnt. It is not. A huge and increasing percentage is used to make pretty much everything. And if you keep it in the ground you are not simply eliminating CO2 you are also eliminating synthetic fibers (most of our clothes), plastics, rubber and every other thing made with petrochemicals. Almost nothing that is made today does not include those very petrochemicals.
Mind you Matthew was also wrong to assert that domestic production would make the US independent of Middle East or any other kind of oil. What's in a barrel of oil you ask? Depends on grade of course but primary distillation dictates what you can extract or make downstream from those fractions. It does not matter whether or not the US produces more barrels of oil than it uses in aggregate. When it comes to gasoline it matters that the extracted fraction that the US needs to make gasoline matches supply to demand. And it hasn't done that for a long time. The last major refinery built in the US with full downstream processing capabilities was built in 1977. Now the industry has labored to increase the throughput of existing facilities with amazing success. But they are at their limit. When you see a utilization graph that says they're consistently above 95 percent utilization that should tell you something. Barring imports you are one or two unanticipated shutdowns away from a severe gas shortage. And those imports come from the international markets. There is no way to insulate yourself from the world.
Should we look into ending sanctions on Venezuela and Iran? Maybe we should focus on the most dangerous geopolitical foe save the second tier players for later?
What's your take on what we should do with subsidies for oil and gas at a time like this? If the current subsidies aren't enough to overcome Wall Street's desire for "capital discipline," what might actually work?
I used to think "a carbon tax can't really be that unpopular, can it?"
Then the American people were like "we will send an army of wife-beaters to the Senate if that's what it takes to lower gas prices" and it all made sense to me...
Cap and trade and carbon prices seems hopelessly doomed if it couldn't happen under Obama, but I dunno maybe you're correct fiscal constraints could lead to it again in the future. Kinda makes sense for carbon removal/capture if that becomes a thing. Be kind of funny if by the time it gets there, there's a counter argument about admin and how rapidly a certain industry is decarbonizing and the inlays it produces.
Wonderful work, Matt, thank you. Love the direct engagement with Dave. On big vehicles progress has been incredibly fast. Google “ecascadia”.
This may be a dumb comment, but I don't get the idea behind a carbon tax. If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what? Go out and buy a Ford F-150 Lightning that doesn't exist because it takes years for production capability to go up? Switch my electricity sourcing from fossil fuels to renewables (assuming I have that tool at hand) where the renewables are dependent on new wind/solar/etc capacity being built, with all the attendant transmission and grid issues that need to be worked out?
Sure, price signals work over time, at least to some degree. But what's the logic of imposing large costs now on consumers that won't yield benefits for years and years? Unless it's only to reduce consumption -- don't go on that family trip and move your thermostat down in the winter. In other words, vote Republican.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get it.
"If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what?" There is a solution to this, the carbon fee and dividend. It puts the tax back into consumers pockets. To get started you will probably spend the dividend on gas and heating. But carbon-free products will now be cheaper. So the carbon fee and dividend incentivizes using less carbon. So you get the best of two worlds: The right incentives and long-term consequence from the tax, but without hurting consumers due to the dividend.
If gas prices or heating costs go up because of a carbon tax (putting aside the complicated idea of redistribution for now), I as a consumer am supposed to do . . . what?"
I don't know about you in particular (Do you own a home or rent? What's your commute like? Do you have the option to work from home?), but people in general would do the same things they already do when prices go up. The simplest is to consume/travel less since that doesn't require buying anything. That's basically the short-term effect.
For longer term, it does impact people's purchases. That doesn't necessary mean running out and buying an electric car (altho that is an option). For people who own houses, it could mean getting a home energy audit (which is subsidized by many utilities --- at least in the US) and doing some air sealing/insulating on their house (likely much less expensive than a new car). Renters don't have as many options for increasing heating/cooling efficiency (there are some --- e.g. window wraps/films), but renters have mobility that could help in other ways (e.g. moving closer to work for a shorter commute, moving to a newer or more efficient apartment, etc.)
As others pointed out, getting more efficient appliances or HVAC is another option. In most cases, this probably means buying something more efficient when the existing appliance breaks. (Replacing a working appliance probably isn't cost effective unless it's super inefficient.)
We have amazingly different views of what the American voter would ever sign up for.
I made no comment on what American voters would sign up for. Those are some actions that reduce energy usage in general. If energy prices go up, those actions can save money regardless for the reason of higher energy costs.
Sure, my question that you quoted seemed to be centered on how would consumers respond to higher prices and it's true that they would respond to them by, e.g., doing some of the things you lay out.
But that's in the abstract. What's key is that the voters would never never never willingly sign up for that regimen.
Imagine a politician campaigning on the pledge to raise gas taxes five cents.
IOW, let's look in a different solution set than carbon taxes until we can replace the American electorate with another one more amendable to carbon taxes.
Yes: you, Matt, and I all agree that voters won't go for it. If you wanted to make that point in your post, it would have been useful to mention voters at least once --- and how they won't go for it --- instead of asking how consumers could respond to increased prices.
I thought I did that pretty explicitly.
The whole "drive voters to the Republicans " thing.
Relating is helpful in this regard, and not at all complicated. Take total tax receipts, divide by total eligibility number of people = rebate. Maybe a slight adjsutment for pop density etc.
The idea is yes, you do all those things, but by knowing the expense is coming you don't buy efficient things only if you happen to replace it during a spike in energy prices.
The flat rebate should ensure you as a lower than average user have some extra resources to mitigate the cost increase. Yes it is tough if you are an above average energy user with below average income. Maybe in certain circumstances a separate program could target those rural areas to help a bit. But if not, maybe your lifestyle is unsustainable.
If your natural gas heating costs are high enough, then you’re incentivized to switch to a heat pump.
Similarly for your water heating, stove, gas dryer, etc. Home electrification is a practical and helpful step for folks, especially if we incentivize it.
A carbon tax should start small and slowely ramp up to give you time to do these things before the cost gets too steep. Basically so that you have the incentive to replace with more efficient when you were going to replace anyway instead of forcing a premature change, but you know higher prices are coming so you should be willing to pay a bit more now, knowing the return will be there. And if you don't, don't complain then about the higher prices.
Also a rebated carbon tax does not remove any money from the economy, unlike higher priced imports.
How do people that rent cope with a carbon tax if they don't control their appliances or HVAC method?
The biggest benefit of renting is that you're much more mobile than if you own. So renters could, for example, move somewhere with more efficient heating or appliances. Or they could move for a shorter commute.
I've only owned a house for a few years now, and I actually think it would be a lot easier for me to become more efficient as a renter. Now that I own a house, if I want more efficient appliances, I need to go out and buy them. When I rented, I could have just moved to a newer apartment. (For whatever reason, I kept ending up in old buildings. I got pretty good at installing window wrap...)
Why it is slow, when people rent a place they will take into account utilities when figuring what rent is worth. Thatbisnalso an area regulation would have leverage over. "Rental appliances shall be energy star rated if utilities are charged to tenant's" would probably work. Landlord can either upgrade or inrnalize the cost by including utilities.
I don't get this. (Again, I'm going to put aside the rebate question; my belief is that people will feel the taxes a lot more than they'll appreciate any check they get from the government.)
If the initial tax is very small, I as a consumer won't do very much, except feel somewhat irritated. Now maybe on the margin I might decide to get an electric induction stove rather than a gas one, but if the electricity is still dirty my doing so has no benefit and I guess I'm somehow continuing to pay the carbon tax on that dirty electricity. How is my choice of an electric stove pushing the grid away from fossil fuels?*
As for paying dollars now so I'll be incentivized down the road to change my behavior and to seek out lower-carbon alternatives. . . well, that doesn't accord with any human psychology I'm familiar with.
* What will change that, as many jurisdictions are doing, is to forbid gas hookups in new construction, and mandating a higher % of renewables in future electricity generation. But there's no tax and there's no assumption that consumer behavior is having some long-range and delayed effect on these types of decisions.
Re: "if the electricity is still dirty my doing so has no benefit and I guess I'm somehow continuing to pay the carbon tax on that dirty electricity. How is my choice of an electric stove pushing the grid away from fossil fuels?"
Yes, the short-term price elasticity of energy use is much lower than the long-term price elasticity. But utilities will be paying the same carbon tax as you and if the tax has scheduled annual increases (as all sensible carbon taxes do, such as the carbon fee and dividend plan of HR 2307), then they will alter their long-term investments to minimize total generating costs, which means using much less fossil fuels than without a carbon tax. Likewise for industry, housing (whether owner-occupied or rental), transportation, etc.
You're not "paying dollars now so I'll be incentivized down the road to change my behavior and to seek out lower-carbon alternatives," you're paying a small fee now, that will probably only reduce your emissions a little, but it's the larger fees in the future that are your incentive to change your future behavior. If that "doesn't accord with any human psychology I'm familiar with," why do market economies outperform command and control economies all over the world?
https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/waiting-for-clarity-how-a-price-on-carbon-can-inspire-investment/
Banning gas hook-ups in new buildings is good where it's politically possible but only an economy-wide carbon tax will efficiently reduce emissions in every sector. Mandating an increasing percentage of renewables in electricity generation is much less efficient than a carbon tax (and most of the politicians that are vehemently against pricing carbon are just as vehemently against such mandates).
I do not have the statistics on this but an important thing to consider is that households are not the entirety of energy usage. Large entities think more long-term, have liquidity to finance investments in reducing their energy expenditures, etc.
yes, like the utility that generates the electricity to power his induction stove. People underestimate the efficacy of even modest carbon taxes to reduce emissions from the power sector:
https://ceepr.mit.edu/challenges-and-opportunities-for-decarbonizing-power-systems-in-the-us-midcontinent/
Then if you don't react the first time, you will the next time when it is steeper.
Electrifying demand is neccisary to reduce FF use. Even if thebelectrical supply is not shifted at the exact moment the demand is, it will be ready as it is. Electrical demand has to be there to be able to decarbonise current non-electrical users.
It's too simple to say "all the electric cars are sold out" so there's nothing to do here. Even assuming no one takes transit or otherwise reduces driving, higher prices encourage sales of more fuel-efficient cars. Replacing SUVs with Corollas doesn't get us to zero, but it does help.
Yep. Buying a small car or a hybrid is probably a bigger carbon reduction bang for the buck than buying an EV.
Also, according to a review in Car and Driver, the F-150 Lightning works great - until you actually use it as a truck. Carrying a full payload or towing a trailer drags the battery range down to under 100 miles.
This take is rational- too rational. Opposing domestic oil production is not a rational proposal, it's an emotional one. (To be clear, I think there is value in both emotion and rationality, generally speaking.) Activist groups are not purposely advocating for something they know is ineffective in order to keep raking in dough. They simply think oil is bad, so we should leave more of it in the ground. Something like if someone is opposed to pornography, they think people should stop producing it, even if someone else will pop up and fill the demand anyway. Tweets like the one from Roberts are just a post-hoc rationalization of one's emotional opposition to oil, period.
You are spot on about much objection to domestic oil being emotional. Emotional reasoning also seems to lead to more motivated reasoning so activists are going to find some way to reason that cutting domestic oil production will have a big difference and that if oil prices go up people won’t start voting for politicians that will lower gas prices and don’t care about climate change
The supply-side climate activists' biggest success hasn't been defeating any single project. It has been convincing Wall Street not to finance hydrocarbon exploration and extraction. US oil companies aren't doing much exploration for new oil currently. They don't want to have any new, expensive projects on their books, because when the price of oil drops they won't have anyone to finance them during the downturn. The oil industry has been told they are a dying industry, and dying industries don't invest money in new projects, they return it to their shareholders. If the Democrats were seriously concerned about how gas prices will affect them electorally, Biden, Schumer, and all the regulatory appointees would signal to Wall Street that it is okay to finance oil companies. Or, they would pass legislation that provides *a lot* of funding to CO2 capture and sequestration research, and would start directly funding the burial and sequestration of CO2. This would tell oil companies (and Wall Street) that they will still exist in 20 years, and it is okay to begin new projects right now.
One of my Afghan friends got all excited ablut Elon Musk's lithium tweets and tweeted back at him to come invest in Afghanistan, because a decade ago the US government was talking up possible lithium resources in the alkaline lakes of Ghazni. Unfortunately USGS checked this out and the quantities aren't economically recoverable... Afghanistan's mineral wealth turns out to be mainly propaganda.
The security situation is much better now than during the occupation, at least in Ghazni. I think US companies would invest if Biden gave clear indications that he wanted them to, which wouldn't be that controversial if it were for lithium mining specifically. In any case the Chinese will develop those sites if they're viable, but it seems they aren't.