Ecology and Economics

What's Best? Carbon Trades or Carbon Tax?

Market Failure in Everything: The Carbon Emissions Edition, Economist's View: What's the best approach to limiting carbon emissions, cap and trade or a carbon tax? Many economists will tell you a carbon tax is best. Political consultants, for the most part, will tell you something else:

Getting on a low-carbon diet, by Ronald Brownstein, Commentary, LA Times … Skeptics…point to the troubles of the cap-and-trade system the European Union has used since 2005... Under pressure from industry, European governments gave away too many credits to polluters; the result was that the price of the credits collapsed, undermining the incentive to cut emissions or use cleaner fuels. ... A second round ... scheduled for next year could ameliorate the problem, but at the least, the European experience suggests that designing a successful cap and trade is an enormously complex undertaking which may require some trial and error before it works. …

UN-Energy on Biofuels and Sustainability

UN Report Urges Caution on Biofuels, Naked Capitalism, May 10: In an underreported story (no mention in the Financial Times or the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal reference was in its energy blog, far from prime time), the United Nations said in essence that biofuels could create as many problems, via environmental damage and higher food prices, as they solve. …

U.N. raises doubts on biofuels, Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, May 8: … In an agency-wide assessment, the U.N. raised alarms about the potential negative impact of biofuels, just days after a climate conference in Bangkok said the world had both the money and technology to prevent global warming blamed in part on greenhouse gas emissions.

Biofuels, which are made from corn, palm oil, sugar cane and other agricultural products, have been seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way to meet the world's soaring energy needs than with greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels. …

The report said bioenergy represents an "extraordinary opportunity" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it warned that "rapid growth in liquid biofuel production will make substantial demands on the world's land and water resources at a time when demand for both food and forest products is also rising rapidly."

Changes in the carbon content of soils and carbon stocks in forests and peat lands might offset some or all of the benefits of the greenhouse gas reductions, it said.

"Use of large-scale monocropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion and nutrient leaching," it said, adding that investments in bioenergy must be managed carefully, at national, regional and local levels to avoid new environmental and social problems "some of which could have irreversible consequences."

It noted that soaring palm oil demand has already led to the clearing of tropical forests in southeast Asia.

In addition, the diversion of food crops for fuel will increase food prices, putting a strain on the poor, as evidenced by the recent steep rise in maize and sugar prices, the report said.

"Liquid biofuel production could threaten the availability of adequate food supplies by diverting land and other productive resources away from food crops," it said, adding that many biofuel crops require the best land, lots of water and environment-damaging chemical fertilizers.

While bioenergy crops can create jobs in impoverished rural areas where the bulk of the world's poor and hungry live, creating biofuels favors large-scale production, meaning small-scale farmers could be pushed off their land by industrial agriculture.

It suggested that farm co-ops, as well as government subsidies, could help small-scale farmers compete.

Such concerns have been raised by Greenpeace International and other environmental groups worried that the biofuel fad is being driven by big agricultural interests looking for new markets.

"More and more, people are realizing that there are serious environmental and serious food security issues involved in biofuels," Greenpeace biofuels expert Jan van Aken said. "There is more to the environment than climate change. Climate change is the most pressing issue, but you cannot fight climate change by large deforestation in Indonesia." …

UN-Energy: Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers [PDF], April 2007

Financial Times weighs in for Carbon Taxes

Financial Times Editorial in Favor of Carbon Taxes (via naked capitalism) : … A Financial Times investigation today reveals that carbon markets leave much room for unverifiable manipulation. Taxes are better, partly because they are less vulnerable to such improprieties. …

So far, the preferred method has been tradeable permits. Creating markets for carbon has political advantages. They are easy to sign into law and even easier to execute. Instead of the optimal method of auctioning permits, governments have given them away. It is no wonder that energy producers are keen to participate in these schemes.

While short-term politics favour markets, taxes would be better in the long term, because industry needs certainty for investments years hence. A government committing to painful taxes signals the seriousness of its intentions. …

Both carbon taxes and markets put undue burden on the poor. Governments should counter such regressive carbon taxes by lowering taxes on labour. Yet most of the political appeal of markets is that they hide the true costs to consumers. That is why carbon markets exist in the first place. For this reason it is unlikely that governments would offset the invisible burden of markets by changing visible taxes.

Smart market design could overcome most problems with tradeable permits: price caps could prevent undue harm to the economy; and intelligent regulatory regimes could prevent other forms of gamesmanship. Yet markets are bound to be more complicated than taxes. When in doubt, keep it simple. Markets for carbon are potentially good. But taxes would be better

And it gets better:

Financial Times uncovers "widespread Carbon Trading fraud" (via naked capitalism) …[W]hat the FT has found is even worse than what we had imagined, worse in the sense that the abuses are so widespread. We hope you will read the stories in their entirety ….

The Case for Carbon Taxes and Against Cap-and-Trade

(via Greg Mankiw)

In a comment on a previous post, reader James offers a good reason why, if the government is to do something about climate change, a carbon tax is better than a cap-and-trade system:

This just occurred to me, so maybe I'm missing something but there seems to be another big advantage for taxes: they probably are much more likely to be both tax-burden and progressivity neutral.

Here's why: Both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade would affect consumers by raising energy costs. (Approximately equally, although to the extent that cap-and-trade imposes more administrative costs, you might need to add more to the price of energy to achieve equivalent carbon emissions.) Taxes raise the after-tax prices directly; cap-and-trade raises the price indirectly by forcing producers to purchase credits, which raises the cost of producing, and thus purchasing, energy. Raising energy costs harms the poor most, because they spend more of their budget on energy.

The regressive effects of a carbon tax are obvious because they are direct, so it should be relatively easy to convince Congress to make the tax revenue and progressivity neutral by instituting income tax cuts (and hikes in the earned income tax credit) weighted toward the poor. (And there's a great bargain to be struck here between conservatives and liberals. Liberals can say, "We'll keep it revenue neutral as long as you keep it progressivity neutral.")

But this will be much more difficult to do for cap-and-trade programs. The main reason that Congress might choose such a program over a carbon tax is the fiction that, unlike a tax, it does not impose costs on consumers. This fiction ignores the indirect cost imposed on consumers when the program increases the price of producing energy. Given that animating fiction, it seems like Congress would be less likely to make progressive changes in the tax code to offset the regressive effects of cap-and-trade. (Congress couldn't argue that they were just offsetting the costs of cap-and-trade because their choice of cap-and-trade was based on denying that those costs exist.)

Carbon Offsets: Modern Day 'Indulgences'?

Much has been made of Carbon Offset schemes. I have remained skeptical. Today I find this, to reinforce my skepticism:

(via Carbon Trade Watch): NEW PUBLICATION: "The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins" [PDF]

Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.

This report argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks, celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies.

Time to Reconsider Nuclear Power?

Former Greenpeace chief Patrick Moore thinks so, and his views have sparked controversy:

[Fuel Fight, ERICA HERRERO-MARTINEZ, Wall Street Journal Online, 2/12//2007] …"During my nearly 40 years as an environmentalist and student of sustainability I have only changed my position on one major issue: nuclear energy," [Dr. Patrick Moore, past director of Greenpeace, International] says.

His change of heart, however, has infuriated many of his former colleagues — and is symbolic of the wider debate raging between supporters of nuclear power and its critics. The late Robert Hunter, another founding member of Greenpeace, once referred to Dr. Moore as an "eco-Judas." Another fellow Greenpeace founder, Paul Watson, was even less restrained, calling him an "eco-whore" for switching to work for the nuclear industry.

Dr. Moore, 59 years old, shrugs off the attacks. "I am often confronted by the assertion that I am not an environmentalist because I support nuclear power…or whatever they don't agree with," he says. "I respond by saying that they are not in charge of giving out credentials for who is an environmentalist."

Dr. Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986, insists he still holds true to almost all the policies Greenpeace initially pursued: banning nuclear testing, whale killing and toxic discharge. "I left Greenpeace because my fellow directors were drifting into policies that I did not believe had any basis in logic or science," says Dr. Moore, now chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., a Vancouver consulting firm. One such policy, he says, was a campaign for a global ban on the use of chlorine in drinking water, he says. (Greenpeace says it has no record of a campaign to ban chlorine in drinking water.)

Greenpeace, meanwhile, continues to fight against the construction of more nuclear reactors. "There is always that risk of a catastrophic disaster," says Mike Townsley, an antinuclear campaigner at Greenpeace in Amsterdam. "No one in the world has resolved the issue of nuclear waste." Another objection to nuclear power, Mr. Townsley adds, is that, if it spreads, so, too, will the technology for nuclear weapons. …

Dr. Moore was certainly a believer in the past. In 1976, for instance, he had written as part of a Greenpeace report that aside from nuclear warheads, nuclear power plants were "the most dangerous devices man has ever created" and that their proliferation wasn't just irresponsible but "criminal."

So what made him change his mind? Dr. Moore traces his metamorphosis to a day trip he took seven years ago to Devon in southwest England. There he met another controversial figure, British scientist James Lovelock.

"I had always been fascinated by [Lovelock's] Gaia hypothesis [which argues that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism]...and when I found out he supported nuclear power I was even more intrigued," Dr. Moore says. "We spent an entire day walking, lunching, supping and into the evening discussing Gaia, climate, nuclear energy."

"Lovelock matter-of-factly said he would gladly take a bundle of used nuclear fuel, put it in his swimming pool and use it to heat his home," Dr. Moore recalls. "This shook my brain into realizing that nuclear waste is no more dangerous than many other chemicals. The trick is to keep it contained and limit our exposure to it."

Dr. Lovelock is considered by other scientists and environmentalists who favor nuclear energy as the pioneer who has helped pave the way for a movement, which sees nuclear power as a potential savior of the environment, as opposed to the dangerous poison it has traditionally been viewed as by mainstream environmentalists.

Drs. Lovelock and Moore aren't alone in embracing nuclear power as the answer to environmental ills. French scientist Bruno Comby in 1996 set up an independent and nonprofit organization, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Members include Dr. Lovelock and former antinuclear activist Simone Weiss. In the U.S., Stewart Brand, an environmentalist and author of the Whole Earth Catalog, has also voiced his support for nuclear power, while in 2004 the late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore was forced to step down from the board of Friends of the Earth after promoting the use of nuclear power in the fight against climate change. …

Hat Tip: John Schrock, A Better Earth.
See also: Beyond Peak Oil: Teaming up Wind with Nuclear Power

---

Update, 2/17:

From Sourcewatch.org [hyperlinks/notes not carried forward here]: Patrick Moore, grew up on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada where his family was involved in the fishing and logging industry. His father, Bill Moore, was past president of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association and past president of the Pacific Logging Congress.

After completing a Bachelor of Science in forest biology at the University of British Columbia and a PH D in ecology on the administration of environmental law relating to the mining industry, Moore became involved first in the Western Canada branch of the Sierra Club and later Greenpeace. His involvement in Greenpeace between 1971 annd 1986 spanned roles as a campaigner in Greenpeace Canada against whaling, uranium mining, sealing, toxic waste and nuclear warships.

He was President of Greenpeace Canada between 1977 and 1986 and as Director of Greenpeace International.

From 1984 he became involved in a family business, Quatsino Seafarms Ltd, farming salmon on Vancouver Island. Until 1991 he was President of the company and between 1986 and 1989 was President of British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association.

Following claims by the United Fishermans and Allied Workers Union about pollution by the industry generally, the Vancouver Sun reported "Moore called the union's concerns 'phoney' saying that we are not causing pollution and there is no such thing as genetic pollution”.(1)

In 1990, PR consultant James Hoggan (who had worked for Western Forest Products) told a meeting of forest executives that the industry was wasting millions on ineffective PR. He said he and Patrick Moore had designed a “green audit” program to sell to industry.(2)

Subsequently, Moore and two others formed Greenspirit to help business and government "incorporate the environmental agenda".(3)

In 1991, the year Moore created Greenspirit, he became a member of the Board of Directors of the timber industry created Forest Alliance of B.C.

In 1991 Moore was appointed as Director of the British Columbia Forest Alliance which was described by O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, as "a Burson-Marsteller created group, bankrolled by large timber companies", which "is waging a PR war with environmentalists upset with the logging of rainforests in western Canada.”(4)

Burson Marstellar employee, Gary Ley, was the Executive Director of the BC Forest Alliance in 1991. Ley subsequently headed up the Vancouver office of National PR, which B-M had a stake in. National PR had the BC Forest Alliance account.

Tom Tevlin, who was part of the initial Forest Alliance team and later succeeded Ley as Executive Director and then President at the Alliance, is now President and CEO of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.

Burson Marstellar had worked for the Argentinian junta to "improve [its] international image" and boost investment. [Joyce Nelson, interview with Harold Burson (founder of Burson Marstellar) fall 1981, New York]. B-M's work for the Argentinian government occurred at the time that 35,000 people were disappeared by death squads.

In July 1991 Moore was asked by a Canadian journalist about B-M’s work for the Argentinian junta. "Forest Alliance Director, Patrick Moore, argues that Burson Marsteller's contract was with Argentina's economic ministry and its non-political role was to encourage foreign investment", Stephen Hume wrote. "It [B-M] has a record of truth in public relations as its bottom line," Moore said, citing the company’s role in the Tylenol recall.

Moore went on to object to the juxtaposing the reality of state murder of political opponents with Burson Marsteller's strategy for marketing the perception of Argentina's stability. Besides, Moore argued, "people get killed everywhere".(5)

In August 1993 Moore was part of the delegation that lobbied a US foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust, against a decision to fund British Columbian environmental groups. Following the meeting, the Chair of the BC Forest Alliance, Jack Munro, told the Vancouver Sun “we are not opposed to them giving money to environmental groups. We are opposed to money filtering into protectionists like the people protesting the Clayquot”, he said.(6)

In January 1994, Moore claimed in an interview that while Greenpeace had acted within the law in all matters relating to the International Whaling Commission that they may have funded travel expenses for some delegates to the Commission. "This statement was in error", Moore wrote in a retraction several days later. (7) Download apology as a PDF document "

Two months later, Moore was criticised for claims that he made that Greenpeace "blackmail" had forced the rejection of The Times of London of an ad from the BC Forest Alliance. The Times rejected Moore claim: "The Times had not even received the art work for the ad from the alliance … we do not even know what this ad is supposed to look like so we can hardly be accused of censorship or bias". (8) See also these articles from Greenpeace's other founder Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard Society on Moore [3].

In 2000 Moore went to the Brazilian Amazon rainforests for the filming of a documentary by Marc Morano for American Investigator, According to an interview in the New York Post, Moore dismissed concerns about the impacts of logging, mining and clearning for agriculture on the Amazonian rainforests. "All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science ... They are quite simply wrong. We found that the Amazon rainforest is more than 90 percent intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area," he said.

"They are just about the healthiest forests in the world. This stuff about them vanishing at an alarming rate is a con based on bad science ... Anyone who has been in the jungle knows that if you want to live there, you'd better take a few machetes. Otherwise, it'll take it all back," he said. [4]

In October 2002, Moore was a keynote lunch speaker at the Best Practices in Communications: Wood Products and Forests, organised by the Wood Promotion Network conference in Vancouver. Moore's speech was titled "Declaration in Support of Protecting the Environment by Growing More Trees and Using More Wood". [5]

In October 2003 Moore endorsed the launch by The Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI) of "Earth Friendly/Farm Friendly" Seal of Approval for the food and dairy industry. Monsanto, Dupont, Kraft/Phillip Morris, and the nuclear industry have funded the Hudson Institute.

In late January 2004 Moore was the key speaker at a 'teach-in' organised by Paul Driessen and hosted under the name of the Congress of Racial Equality on 'eco-imperialism' at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers. The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity ... The pain and suffering it inflicts on families in developing countries can no longer be tolerated," he said.

Key Questions on Energy

We dabble a bit in "energy" here. Over at The Oil Drum they adress energy squarely and thoroughly. Here is a teaser:

Key Questions on Energy Options (and Thoughts on the SOTU), by Robert Rapier 01/24/2007: A question was recently posed here: What is the most important question concerning ethanol production? That got me to thinking about important questions regarding not only ethanol, but all of our energy sources. There are a number of issues that we must carefully consider for any of our potential energy sources.

In my opinion, they are:

1. Is the energy source sustainable?
2. What are the potential negative externalities of producing/using this energy source?
3. What is the EROEI?
4. Is it affordable?
5. Are there better alternatives?
6. Are there other special considerations?
7. In summary, are the advantages of the source large enough to justify any negative consequences?

Go there for answers and commentary.

Are Biofuels Moving Us in the Wrong Direction?

As the political fuel behind biofuels propels us forward, is it time to take a step back for reflection? Craig Mackintosh says yes. Here is a glimpse of his very good work:

Biofuels from the Frying Pan to the Fire? Craig Mackintosh, 12/29/06:…When we take into account the scale of our past, present, and future transport requirements - are biofuels going to cut it? Do they hold the promise of securing our futures — nationally, economically, and ecologically? … Grist has an excellent collection of articles on the Biofuel subject …. Given the rate and scale of biofuel developments, I think it’s appropriate for me to bring their 'Not so fast: Issues and Implications' section to your notice. …

Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.

In Southeast Asia, and increasingly in the Amazon, plantations of the African oil palm have become wildly lucrative. After monocropping the palms on recently cleared rainforest land, growers press the palm fruit and kernel for oil that can be used in both food and industrial applications, including — and increasingly — as biodiesel.

The palm oil industry is booming: global exports increased more than 50 percent from 1999 to 2004. To meet the growing demand, producers in Malaysia and Indonesia have ramped up production by clearing thousands of square miles of rainforest for new plantations.

In Indonesia, rainforest loss for oil palms has contributed to the endangerment of 140 species of land animals, while in Malaysia animals like the Sumatran tiger and Bornean orangutan have been pushed to the brink of extinction. Fish kills have become common in waterways surrounding plantations and palm-oil mills, as soil erosion from the cleared land and mill effluents have left waterways clogged with sediment and unviable.

The boom hasn't been limited to Southeast Asia. In one of the most disturbing examples of the biofuel hype’s hidden effects, right-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia — a country mired in a four-decade-old civil war — have in recent years begun planting oil palm plantations over wide swaths of the territory they control. …

Farther south, another biodiversity hotspot is being rapidly cleared to plant a biodiesel crop. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil’s Cerrado region — a woodland savanna mix — has been cleared for agricultural production, mostly for soybeans, according to a Conservation International report.

Despite being home to thousands of endemic plant and animal species, the Cerrado has been promoted as "the last agricultural frontier" by green-revolution hero and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug. Low land and labor costs and high yield potential have sent investors from as far away as Iowa scrambling to buy up these Brazilian grasslands, frequently in collaboration with U.S. agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland, whose first Brazilian biodiesel production facility is currently in the works.

Tad Patzek, a professor in UC-Berkeley’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering who's known primarily as a critic of corn ethanol, says what's happening in tropical ecosystems is much more serious than the biofuel situation in the U.S. "We've already destroyed the prairie, and the topsoil in the Midwest is going, going, gone," Patzek says. "But the expensive noise we’re making here is being translated there into the total obliteration of the most precious ecosystems on earth." — 'What about the Land?'

I'd like to stimulate some discussion on this topic, as its importance cannot be underestimated. If we are considering using every available piece of land on the planet (and taking down our most valuable forests in addition) to fuel a ballooning population of vehicles, then discussion is the least we can do. …

I’m fairly sure the world still has serious issues with food and water shortages . As it stands, our dietary habits have us using more land per capita than the rest of the world (and not just our own land…). Combine this with the insatiable appetite our vehicles have, and will we not be taking this already out-of-proportion ratio into the realms of the obscene, and absurd? …

In the meantime, biofuel plants are going up everywhere and politicians are setting biofuel quotas into law. I guess I'd like to ask, where are we going with this? Are we not jumping straight from the frying pan into the fire? …

For a bit of hope (maybe?) re: Biodiesel from algae, see our earlier post on the subject, as well as another very good Mackintosh post titled As Corn Ethanol Threatens, Algae Makes Promises, 1/7/2007.

{Update Feb. 1}: Here's the latest on the Palm Oil mess, from The Oil Drum, Jan 30

Biodiesel from Pond Scum

I should never trust things I see on local TV. Or maybe, sometimes, I should. Last night I saw my old alma mater, Utah State University, unveil an ambitious plan to build a large scale production facility to convert pond scum into biodiesel. I wondered, Is this the next big Utah embarressment in the wake of the cold fusion debacle in 1989? Or is this really a possibility? Being a biodeisel skeptic. I thought I'd at least air this, and maybe do a Google search and a Google blog search to see what I might find. Here is the TV feed:

Pond Scum Offers Promise for Biodiesel, Ed Yeates, KSL.com: …Utah State University researchers are looking at biodiesel fuel made from pond scum. That's right, the green, slimy stuff that grows virtually anywhere appears to produce as good, if not a better, quality biodiesel fuel than soybeans.

Lance Seefeldt , USU Biofuels Program: "For soybeans, you get about 48 gallons per acre. And right now, the idea is for algae, we could get about 10-thousand gallons of oil per acre. So you can see it's about 200 times more oil per acre compared to soybeans."

Instead of prime agricultural land needed for soybeans or corn, pond scum can be grown rapidly on meshes or grids inside huge structures, fed by rooftop solar dishes. It's not a refinery, but a bioreactor.

Bright light comes through fiber optics from one single solar dish on the roof of the lab. Now, imagine what thousands of dishes could do in a massive bioreactor. Bioreactors built not on productive farmland, but on remote desert soils with thousands of grids inside growing the pond scum from solar energy.

"For every square meter of parabolic dish, we can illuminate 10 square meters of algae surface."

Byard Wood, USU Biofuels Program: "We're talking about thousands of acres with these kinds of bioreactors to produce in quantity the amount of liquid fuel that we need to make an impact."

From prototypes, to a fuel, to the pump, the technology appears so promising it's got the backing of the Utah Science and Technology Research Initiative to the tune of six million dollars in seed money.

The first large experimental facility would be built in Utah. USU expects pond scum biodiesel fuels could become cost competitive by 2009.

In his "How the World Works" column, Salon's Andrew Leonard had this to say on biodiesel in late 2005:

Pond Scum to the Rescue, Andrew Leonard, 12/16/2005…Ethanol from corn, and biodiesel from soybean or French fry grease are two fairly well-known [biodiesel] examples. I started looking into federal funding of this kind of research this morning, because I'd gotten curious about a comment a reader made about algae in a response to my earlier post about biodiesel and tropical forests. (Incidentally, Grist Magazine has an excellent article up today about how Brazil is kicking ass on the biodiesel production front.)

I've had a soft spot for algae ever since one of my first stories for Salon, an investigation into the mysterious "super-food" blue green algae harvested from Klamath Lake in southern Oregon. My reader was telling me that algae could be converted to biodiesel at far greater efficiencies than soybean or palm oil. Algae? Pond scum to the rescue? Could it be?

Turns out there are some promising hints that algae could be a fantastic source of biodiesel. In a paper last updated in 2004, Michael Briggs, a researcher at the University of New Hampshire, lays out an ambitious goal for replacing all petrochemical fuels consumed for transportation in the U.S. from algae-derived biodiesel. Fast growing and containing high concentrations of oil, certain species of algae, writes Briggs, would require far less land than crops like corn or soybeans. Even better, from a holistic point of view, algae could be farmed using sewage effluents as nutrients! In cryptic comments posted at a biodiesel forum hosted by Briggs, the UNH scientist notes that his university is developing a proprietary conversion technique that should start being deployed in the next couple of years.

More from Briggs and others here, in a Dec. 27, 2006 update on Biodiesel from Pond Scum from CNET.com

{Update 1/23/07} See also: As Corn Ethanol Threatens, Algae Makes Promises: … Lester Brown, the highly respected President of the Earth Policy Institute, has essentially requested a cessation on further development of ethanol plants, …

Nouriel Roubini Jumps on the Gas Tax Bandwagon

Last week Nouriel Roubini joined a long list of other economic "notables" by advocating a US gas tax of about $1 per gallon (phased in at about 10 cents per year for a decade):

It's High Time for a Carbon Tax: ... Think of a policy action that would:

• Help reduce the large U.S. budget deficit and even make permanent some – but not all – of recent tax cuts
• Reduce the unsustainable U.S. trade deficit
• Reduce truly – not just rhetorically - the U.S. dependency on oil and energy imported from unstable regimes in the Middle East and other regions and would improve U.S. national security.
• Start seriously dealing with the problem of climate warming induced by greenhouse emissions, a problem prominently addressed by the recent Stern Report.
• Reduce the pre-tax equilibrium global dollar price of oil and thus improve the terms of trade of oil importers
• Reduce the power of unstable "Petro-States" (to use the Tom Friedman expression)
• Reduce road congestion and our demand for gas-guzzler vehicles
• Have broad bipartisan support 

What is that policy? A "Carbon Tax"…

A long list of … economists and policy makers on both sides of the political spectrum have come in support of the idea of an energy or carbon tax including Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Martin Feldstein, Paul Krugman and Gary Becker.

A tax that reduces the budget deficit, the trade deficit, helps to solve the global warming problem and cleans up the environment, reduces the power of unstable regimes that export oil, strengthens the U.S. national security, has broad bipartisan support.

Posted first on Economic Dreams--Economic Nightmares