Resources for the Future

Time for a carbon tax?

November 9, 2011

“I was a huge supporter of cap and trade,” said Wayne Leonard, the CEO of Entergy, a $11 billion utility company.

“We developed enormously elegant solutions, but they couldn’t get done.”

Taxing carbon emissions is the next best way to deal with the threat of global climate disruptions, he said, in part because it would give the energy industry a degree of certainty about how to deploy its capital.

“A simple tax on every one is a starting point,” Leonard said. Proceeds could be used to reduce the federal deficit or rebated to consumers.

Leonard spoke today (Nov. 9) at a launch event for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a new organization that is succeeding the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Eileen Claussen, who has directed the Pew Center for 13 years, will lead the new group, which has raised money from three so-called strategic partners — Entergy, HP and Shell — as well as Alcoa Foundation, Bank of America, GE, The Energy Foundation, Duke Energy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Pew is no longer a backer.

[click to continue…]

{ 4 comments }

The strange power of prizes

December 2, 2009

Prizes are powerful incentives.

secondary

In 1927, Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic to win the $25,00 Orteig prize.

The DARPA Challenge

Tartan Racing, a collaboration between students at Carnegie Mellon and General Motors, won a $2 million prize in the 2007 DARPA Grand Challenge, a competition to develop an  autonomous ground vehicle for the military.

Cracker_Jack_Box

And, of course,  kids since 1912 have been tearing open Cracker Jack boxes to get at the prize inside.

Prizes are fun. The difference between a spelling test and a spelling bee is a prize.

These days, as never before, private companies, foundations and government are turning to prizes as a way to spur technological and environmental innovation. This proliferation of prizes tells us some interesting things about ourselves and about the limits markets, as I’ll argue in a moment.

Best known of the prize-givers is the X Prize Foundation, whose slogan is “revolution through competition.” It’s offering prizes of at least $10 million each for safely landing a robot on the moon (sponsored by Google),  for building a super-efficient car (sponsored by Progressive Automotive) and for breakthroughs in genomics. [click to continue…]

{ 10 comments }

Renewable energy threatens the planet. Who knew?

Our nation runs the risk of damaging the environment, in the name of saving the environment.

There are negative consequences from producing energy from the sun, the wind and the earth.

So, at least, said Lamar Alexander, the Republican senator from Tennessee and a long-time conservationist, during a speech today at Resources for the Future.

Lamar_Alexander_official_portraitWhat’s he worried about? The danger that developing thousands of wind turbines, building solar-thermal power plants which spread across the desert and cultivating acres upon acres of land for biofuels will create “energy sprawl,” consuming too much territory and threatening wildlife.

Citing a a study by the Nature Conservancy, Alexander warned that “during the next 20 years, new energy production, especially biofuels and wind power, will consume a land mass larger than the state of Nebraska.”

What’s his solution? Nuclear power, which produces lots of low-carbon electricity in a way that’s least likely to harm wildlife and the landscape. [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

Hank Paulson was relaxed, and why not? For a change, the treasury secretary wasn’t on the defensive about failing to save Lehman Brothers, or changing direction on TARP. Instead, he was expounding on a favorite topic: saving the planet from the threat of climate change.

Ever the loyalist, he praised President Bush for insisting that any solution to the climate change problem be global, including China, India and the rest of the developing world.

But in his last week in office, he also broke with the Bush administration to say that the U.S. needs a regulatory scheme that will put a price on carbon dioxide emissions. The Bush team has argued that voluntary actions will do the job.

“I’m a big believer in price signals,” Paulson said. “This will lead to the development of new technologies.”

Accompanied by his wife, Wendy, Paulson spoke this afternoon at Resources for the Future, a widely-respected nonprofit research outfit that analyzes environmental and energy policy. He knows the group well and, in fact, last year hired one of its top economists, Billy Pizer, to lead environmental initiatives at treasury.

Phil Sharp, a former congressman who’s now president of RFF, interviewed Paulson. He asked whether Paulson favored a carbon tax to regulate GHG emissions or a cap-and-trade system that would auction or allocate permits to pollute. Paulson declined to say, although he did allow that he had told government officials in China that cap-and-trade has been an effective way from the U.S. to regulate other pollutants, like SOX and NOX from coal plants.

“All you’re going to get from me at this juncture is that you need clear price signals that are predictable and gradual,” Paulson said. “I want something that’s fair, credible, efficient and transparent.”

“Depending on how things get done, it may be a distinction without a difference,” he added, referring to the choice between a carbon tax or cap-and-trade.

Of course, the Bush administration and outgoing Congress gave us neither.

Still, as Paulson noted, the administration has shifted the global debate over climate change in a useful way, persuading other western countries that the developing world – China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and the rest – needs to sign onto a global treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The failure of poor countries to sign onto the Kyoto treaty is one reason why it was rejected by Congress a decade ago.

Developing countries need to be part of a post-Kyoto treaty, he argued, even though they emit much less CO2 on a per capita basis than do the U.S., the EU and Japan.

Developing countries can be asked to slow the rate by which they increase emissions, even as wealthy countries are required to reduce emissions, dramatically but gradually, on an absolute basis.

“Anything we do, it needs to be global,” Paulson said. “Otherwise we’re going to export our emissions (actually, the industries that generate the emissions) to other countries.”

Paulson also gave the administration credit for supporting a global clean technology fund, administered by the World Bank, that will help poor countries afford clean technology. The fund, for example, would subsidize clean energy projects so they would be no more expensive that conventional fossil fuel projects.

“There is no way that we are going to solve the enormous problems we have before us without the deployment of a great deal of new technology,” Paulson said, meaning many billions of dollars of new investment are needed.

The former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson has long been an environmentalist. He’s an avid bird watcher and the former chair of The Nature Conservancy, and his wife runs a small environmental NGO. I profiled him last September for FORTUNE and came away impressed by his energy, brainpower and courage. Whatever you say about his handling of the financial meltdown—and it will take time to arrive at a measured judgment—I think he’s always acted with the best interests of the populace in mind, despite the criticism that he’s been too quick to bail out Wall Streets and too slow to help the little guy.

What’s next for Paulson? He wouldn’t say, other than to suggest that he’ll be spending a good chunk of his time on the environment.

“All I can is I’m going to take some time and plan the next steps,” Paulson said, glancing towards his wife. “Wendy’s been not just a partner but the leader here. The two of us will figure out what the next step will be when it comes to conservation and the environment.”

{ 3 comments }