-
1. IBM, Motorola back effort to control supply-chain carbon emissions
-
2. Politicians talking science
-
3. Welcoming our new efficiency overlords
-
4. MS-Yahoo marriage could drive green SaaS innovation
IBM, Motorola back effort to control supply-chain carbon emissions
Ted Samson - Carbon emissions
Politicians talking science
The proposal to have a presidential science debate has been getting a surprising amount of traction. After ringing up a billion prominent endorsements, the organizers of the proposed debate have now picked a date (April 18) and have sent out invitations to the remaining candidates.
The idea behind Science Debate 2008 is straightforward:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.
Curious: what do people think of this?
I'm a bit conflicted, for a few reasons. The first is that I suspect the event will be less enlightening than people hope. Presidential debates consist mainly of sound bites and point-scoring, and this one will likely be no different. Another concern is that science itself may come off badly. The politicization of science is a real problem in the U.S., and it's not hard to imagine a debate exacerbating that problem. Of course, an intelligent choice of format can help a lot here.
I'm not the only one to raise such concerns. But a long list of luminaries feel otherwise, and I confess that I also signed the petition in favor of the debate. Why? Because there are too many issues we simply never hear about. Whatever its chance for success, the science debate seems like a worthwhile experiment.
Your thoughts? (If you're in favor, you can voice support the cause here.)
Welcoming our new efficiency overlords
The so-called incandescent light bulb ban (not actually a ban) included as part of the recent energy bill has prompted a low-level but consistent set of complaints that deserve further consideration, because they betray a fair amount of confusion about the which policy tools to break out for which issues.
On the right, the reaction to the new lighting efficiency standard has ranged from hysterical whining to hysterical snark. But even on the left, it's fairly common to run across the high-minded opinion that finicky legislation like the lighting efficiency standard only wastes time and stirs up needless recrimination. Instead we should set a price on carbon, and let the market sort out the rest.
It's an excellent theory, one that I subscribe to under most circumstances, but sometimes command and control really is just the thing. The math on light bulbs is pretty easy to run. Follow along if you're interested, or just skip the next two paragraphs.
Let's assume that carbon costs $7 per ton. This isn't an arbitrary figure -- it's the price cap baked into the carbon legislation coming online soon in the northeastern states. Assume normal usage patterns (100 watt bulb, four hours per day) and average carbon intensity for the electrical grid (1.34 lbs CO2 per kilowatt hour). Such a carbon tax would impose a surcharge of $0.45 per bulb per year.
Let's increase the carbon tax to $80 per ton, bearing in mind that even if we were to enact the Obama plan tomorrow, it will be many years before carbon reaches this price. In this scenario the carbon surcharge is $5 per bulb per year. As a percentage increase on the cost of ownership for a light bulb, $5 is actually quite high. But it's still nowhere near the direct annual electricity costs to power a light bulb. And it's still only $5.
That's the problem. Information costs for consumers standing in a supermarket aisle trying to get their shopping done swamp the possible savings. Such information costs are certainly higher than $0.45, and possibly higher than $5. Yes, eventually the invisible hand will do its thing. But if we want to quickly achieve the massive efficiency gains that are technologically possible today, the most straightforward path is an efficiency standard, plain and simple.
And we do want to achieve those gains quickly. The benefits are quite large, and they go beyond the immediate, direct carbon reductions. It's easy to get so caught up counting pounds of CO2 that we lose sight of the bigger picture of transforming our energy infrastructure. If you build a coal plant today, be prepared to look at that plant for the next fifty or more years. Efficiency standards can complement carbon pricing nicely, because they help to relieve the pressure on our infrastructure now while we put into place the legislative and technological solutions needed for the longer term.
MS-Yahoo marriage could drive green SaaS innovation
Ted Samson - Microsoft
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment