PV Capacity Additions by Country

Lou Dobbs Called Out (and Capalearno Blog Catching Some Wreck)

Courtesy of Migra Matters, a great video clip of Keith Olbermann blasting Lou Dobbs' hypocrisy in bashing illegal immigrants while spending millions for his daughters to compete in a sport - equestrian show-jumping - that employs thousands of illegal workers. As Vicky Moon writes in her book, A Sunday Horse: Inside the Grand Prix Show Jumping Circuit, the sport of show-jumping literally could not exist without the scores of Latino illegals who tend to the horses' less glamorous needs (including, according to Moon, shoveling forty tons of horse droppings a day).

Nor is Dobbs somehow ignorant of the existence of these illegal grooms. Not only would that require colossal blindness, but a friend of mine who rode on the Palm Beach circuit reports occasionally seeing Dobbs playing poker with his daughter's grooms.... perhaps trying to win back some of what he pays them? Think he bothered to ask to see their green cards?

Migra Matters also offered a particularly astute comment on the Olbermann clip:

Of course some in the blogosphere have known this for quite some time...go check em out and show a little comment love for once again doing the work the MSM (except Keith) refuse to do.

Bustard Blog

Capalearno

Damn right! Circulate this clip and hopefully it can move others to publicly denounce Dobbs' hypocrisy.

Carbon or Carbon Dioixde?: Where to Find Sound Climate Policy

Gristmill explains an importance difference: the precise conversion between carbon and carbon dioxide:

The atomic weight of carbon is 12 atomic mass units, while the weight of carbon dioxide is 44, because it includes two oxygen atoms that each weigh 16. So, to switch from one to the other, use the formula: One ton of carbon equals 44/12 = 11/3 = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide. Thus 11 tons of carbon dioxide equals 3 tons of carbon, and a price of $30 per ton of carbon dioxide equals a price of $110 per ton of carbon.

Thus, when CTC recommends for 2009 a tax of $37/ton of Carbon - rising gradually to become $370/ton of Carbon by 2019 - this works out to a 2009 tax of $10/ton of CO2 and a 2019 tax of $100/ton of CO2.

The above two sites are careful enough to explain this distinction, which is why there are terrific
sources of information on climate policy. As to official sources, Peter Orszag's CBO Director's Blog is a gem on all matters of public finance, but is particularly strong on climate change. Orszag understands the challenge of climate change and under his leadership CBO has already issued a hugely useful policy study (key finding: for a given amount of economic cost, a carbon tax will achieve roughly five times the carbon emission reductions as a cap-and-trade system.... for the wonks: though the comparison varies depending on how cap-and-trade is structured - whether there is a price "safety valve" for emissions permits, whether permits are bankable - emissions reductions from even the most efficiently designed cap-and-trade system are far more expensive than what is achieved under a carbon tax.

Orszag's leadeship at CBO is estimable, and I take pride that one of his former students - international taxation expert Kim Clausing - taught me at Reed college! We even worked together on a summer research project. Ah, the glory in lineage.

Carbon Tax Center

I just wanted to explain a bit more about the Carbon Tax Center.

CTC's goal is to build public support for a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions, meaning a tax on carbon emissions coupled with a reduction in the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. CTC's preferred tax begins at $37/ton of carbon, and is scaled up over ten years to $370/ton of carbon. Structuring a carbon tax so that it is revenue-neutral offers several advantages:

a) coupled with reductions in the payroll tax, a carbon tax will not make the U.S. tax code more regressive

b) revenue-neutrality will be critical to attracting the political support necessary to get the per unit tax rate high enough where it can make a sufficient dent in emissions

c) existing U.S. subsidies to alternative energy have wrought only harm - namely a boom in corn ethanol that raises food prices, brings no net reduction in carbon emissions, and distorts incentives for producers of genuinely clean energy - thus it makes more sense to return extra revenue to the taxpayers rather than to let lawmakers pursue more wrongheaded subsidies

Read more about these points on the CTC website; maybe even think of someone to fund our conference!

Bloomberg on Congestion Pricing

This morning’s Crain's Breakfast gave Mayor Bloomberg a chance to make a final push for his congestion pricing plan before the March 31 deadline, when the NYS Legislature must either approve the plan or lose $354 million in federal transportation funding.

Bloomberg’s speech was effective: after laying out the costs of traffic in Manhattan’s central business district – an estimated $13 billion in lost time and fuel, reduced business productivity, increased emissions of carbon monoxide (asthma) and carbon dioxide (global warming) – the Mayor addressed four criticisms of his plan. He argued that: a) congestion pricing fees will raise significant revenue specifically for mass transit improvements (estimated that the revenue stream would bond out to $4.2 billion, and that without this stream MTA capital investments will require again raising fares) b) congestion pricing won’t create parking lots on the boundaries of the central business district (no parking spaces in these neighborhoods anyway) c) congestion pricing scheme is not regressive (the small minority of New Yorkers who drive to work are on average well above median income d) exemption of congestion fees for New Jersey drivers is reasonable since they already pay $8 tolls to the Port Authority to get to Manhattan, and half of that money goes toward New York transportation needs. Bloomberg concluded by noting that he was meeting with Patterson and other officials in Albany this afternoon to urge action on his plan.

Bloomberg was followed by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who urged approval of congestion fees, noted their success in other cities, and made a somewhat confused observation about the number of hours NYC residents spend in traffic each year (either than the average resident spends 49 hours a year in traffic (which seems low), or that congestion fees would reduce time per resident spent in traffic by 49 hours).

In the Q&A with journalist Bloomberg gave feisty responses, describing an objection by Congressman Weiner to congestion fees as “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” (Weiner argues that congestion pricing will have no benefits, because whatever money NYC raises through fees will be offset by declines in federal transportation grants at the demand of anti-New York Republicans. Bloomberg responded that – it is Weiner’s job to help secure such funds, Democrats control Congress, and by Weiner’s logic New York City should eliminate all taxes and wait for federal money to fill the void).

In response to a question, Bloomberg acknowledged that a logistically easier way to reduce Manhattan congestion and raise revenue for mass transit would be to simply place tolls on East River bridges. He explained his reluctance to pursue this strategy by noting that “toll politics are extremely difficult”, but suggested that in the city’s gloomier economic climate citizens might become more open to formerly taboo revenue-raising measures.

All in all a good breakfast – let's hope its message was heard in Albany. Not only is Bloomberg's congestion plan strong on the merits, it represents a crucial test of New York elected officials' willingness to embrace market-based solutions to public problems. When people drive into Manhattan's central business district at peak hours they are using a scarce public resource, not to mention causing harm to others in the forms of delayed travel and polluted air; why souldn't drivers be forced to pay for this privilege?