http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog …environmental economics and the implications of environmental policy Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:46:26 +0000 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:46:26 +0000 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php Rss Feed Engine dave@enviroeconomics.ca Ottawa puts up barrier to Sinopec bitumen exports. Ottawa says it will use its regulatory power to stop Chinese state-controlled Sinopec from exporting raw oil sands bitumen and refining it abroad to take advantage of looser climate-change rules. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/ottawa-puts-up-barrier-to-sinopec-bitumen-exports/article1534790/ http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item29 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:46:26 +0000 Immature markets with poor oversight and cash on the table necessarily leads to fraud. Forget offset aggregation to make cash. Good old fraud is a growth business, so sayeth the article: "The participation of the United States and other major economies like Japan would create a global market that could be worth up to $3 trillion annually by 2020, compared with its current annual value of $130 billion" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/energy-environment/08green.html?ref=energy-environment http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item28 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:22:12 +0000 Some interesting stuff here. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762954--questions-for-climate-change-skeptics http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item27 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:14:47 +0000 A good read indeed. Some reasons why the EU is over allocating as the economy deflates, and energy markets price gas below coal. This is then driving fuel switching absent policy, and so leading to permit surpluses. This line says it all: "In the short-term, that means the market is structurally long, even before importing CERs or ERUs." http://www.commodityonline.com/news/The-disonnect-between-EUA-prices-fundamentals-25104-3-1.html http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item26 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:17:33 +0000 For those who have helped influence climate policy, there comes a time when your preference for a tax must be shelved in favor of cap-and-trade due to political pressures. This may explain Garnault's about face on cap-and-trade. Or perhaps I should say a tax in disquise -- low and fixed price ceiling. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/scrap-ets-and-go-for-a-carbon-tax-garnaut-20100125-muk8.html http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item25 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:31:33 +0000 Apparently, inaction does not come from the Minister but the PM. Word on the street is that at least three climate policy proposals have been brought to cabinet and three have been rejected. So inaction as in prorogation comes from the top. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/01/22/12579206-qmi.html http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item24 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:58:14 +0000 Worth a quick read: Coase, instrument choice and political leanings. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/economy/10view.html?ref=energy-environment http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item23 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:25:59 +0000 A new paper on linking in the North American context. Shameless self-promotion, I know...... http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1223 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item22 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:46:56 +0000 Al Berta.......too funny. http://www.wam.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1261832922871&pagename=WAM%2FWAM_E_Layout&parent=Query&parentid=1135099399852 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item21 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:23:10 +0000 The GE Modelling of the "Benefits" of spending on renewables is only partial, and totally crap. What is missing is the increase in costs to energy, which lowers productivity. As NREE_Alberta says, "I can increase jobs through digging ditches and then filling them in. The real question is to what end?" So, be wary of vested interests shopping job growth numbers around -- the input-output models used will always show an increase in activity when you spend. What is not shown is the offset in total factor productivity due to the increased cost to electrify end-users. And oh yes, they could not even take the time to use the Canadian I/O tables. http://www.geenergyfinancialservices.com/press_room/press_releases/ecoENERGYStudyFINAL.pdf http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item20 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:36:12 +0000 Many folks have been saying this, but this seems to be one of the first public confirmations that a senate bill is going nowhere fast. Which then puts us into the two year mark plus for Obama, which then means re-election and a backing away of contentious policy. So, worst case seems to be a second term effort to push a climate bill for Obama...Which then leaves the EPA room to move. But on what is the question. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9485513 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item19 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:53:06 +0000 Why would the French court strike down the complementary carbon tax for equity reasons when carbon pricing for electricity emissions is already in place through the ETS? Could it be the permit prices are below the proposed tax rate? Still, in the presence of the ETS consumers in France see higher electricity prices due to the well documented pass through of carbon costs. So is the court arguing for higher consumer prices? I doubt that, but Bizzaro indeed. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100105-700874.html http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item18 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:59:46 +0000 "France’s constitutional court rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions, saying a web of exemptions violated the principal of equality and rendered efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions ineffective." > Presumably the carbon tax was designed as a complement to the EU ETS, and so address liquid fuels in cars and buildings. I would like to see what the court looked at in terms of coverage and how exemptions were identified. A closer look seems warranted. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aY9Dhj8qZZZE http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item17 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:46:40 +0000 Ouch, a scathing account that rings too true. And this quote hits a little too close to home, "Remind me again why I want nothing to do with these clowns and ... why I have no faith whatsoever in their ability to mount a credible emissions plan..." http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/16/the-climate-change-conference-from-hell.aspx http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item16 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:19:44 +0000 The first climate change lawsuit in Canada has been filed. See here....I like the link to the KPIA (Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act)....This could be interesting if the case can look at the Enron carbon accounting used by the GoC to report compliance under the Act. http://www.foecanada.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=399&Itemid=2 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item15 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:29:10 +0000 I have heard Ross talk about his T3 tax, and it often creeps up, so here is a good article from the NYTimes to get your head around it. I like this bit about expectations in particular: "McKitrick’s idea is an elegant stab at having advocates put their money where their mouth is. But sadly, his tax isn’t well suited for the climate crisis because it fails to provide the clear price trajectory needed by businesses, entrepreneurs, and others with long time-horizons for carbon-critical capital investment (power plants, location choice, product development, etc.). Had the U.S. implemented a McKitrick tax in, say, 1988, when James Hansen brought the climate crisis into American consciousness, we might be well on our way to a low-carbon economy. Twenty years on, we need a clearer price signal than his proposal offers." http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/the-temperature-tax/ http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item14 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:50:02 +0000 Article here on why a one child policy would solve climate problems. The policy comes off as a crock, and is attacked by a priest in the National Post, but is there something to it? In Canada, it is population and immigration more specifically in the long-term that drives economic growth given falling birthrates. If immigration is stopped, at least in the hypothetical world of long-term economic forecasts, emissions then plateau. But this is high cost stuff, given we limit economic output to achieve climate goals. Clealry an unacceptable policy, on a number of levels, but perhaps some on the political right could finally rally behind climate action, Y'all. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2340660 http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item13 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:46:14 +0000 The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal sets a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, the level contained in a bill passed by the House earlier this year.... The plan also calls for increased incentives for offshore oil and gas drilling and government support for nuclear power plant construction, provisions designed to win the support of Republicans and moderate Democrats. It also allows for tariffs on goods from countries that do not set strong greenhouse gas emissions limits, as long as such tariffs are compliant with global trade agreements. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/senators-offer-new-climate-proposals/ http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item12 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:22:25 +0000 "After inheriting wealth, knowledge and health, after being spared the horrors of world wars and a great depression, history's most privileged cohorts are rolling the dice on someone else's future. Those edging toward the door are leaving behind their garbage for those they say they love." ... "Presumably he [the PM] grasps that someday we will all have to tell grandchildren that by the turn of this century the social contract was no more binding than an election promise." http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/735644--travers-o-canada-the-world-s-dirty-old-man http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item11 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:03:11 +0000 Numberitis, (Numb-er-itis). The inability to smell wonkyness given continual looping iterations and rapidly amassing output. Adj, (1) to be lost in a spreadsheet; (2) to be unphased by sign changes; (3) to be broken by model outputs. http:// http://enviroeconomics.ca/blog/sidenotes-rss.php?item10 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:11:14 +0000