Climate change discussion (practise for Azvanna)

[Rhythm]

I'm a researcher and advocate for sustainable development (specifically rural transition in appalachia ). We work with the university extension service and a handful of federal agencies to direct funds and training to investors, business owners, and entrepreneurs looking to go green, and, additionally, I ensure that the recipients of the same are in compliance with the programs from which they benefit. I'm also running a viability assessment on intensive recirculating aquacultural systems as a sustainable alternative to burley tobacco production in rural appalachia. I've previously worked for the EPA, NRCS, and NR&D Council. I have two decades of experience in operations and management, specifically defense contracts, and in the last ten years I've set up CSA's and vertical hydro systems in 4 SE US states. Once upon a time, I served in the US armed forces as a peacekeeper, and have distributed aid and helped to build much needed infrastructure in a half dozen conflict zones worldwide.

The people I've been working with for all of this time have heard those punitive arguments, and, clearly, it doesn't address their concerns. It only strengthens them. Moreover, the very moment we decide to use the words "less profitable" we'll have lost every business minded and/or poor ear in a room. I think that it's a mistake to write off "the other side" as though they had no legitimate concerns, or to respond to those legitimate concerns with an authoritarian solution that will not, and cannot, address them. When we speak of legislation as though it can be achieved in a wholly one-sided manner, we're deluding ourselves. That's not how legislation works...and I don't think that any of us really want it to work that way. Similarly, I'm appalled at how easy it is to bait my fellow advocates into regarding these people as mustache twirling villains.

The concerns I hear most often are ones surrounding the cost of remediation, and the futility of remediation in the face of a global market that will, if that global market doesn't remain in poverty unto the end of days, account for more pollution than we currently produce. In the absence of a specific plan beyond "legislate against them"...and without any exploration of how it might be that they could interface with this new future we dream of, it's ludicrous to consider their misgivings as unfounded. There will be losers in a green future. They will be real people with families and employees who depend on them for their own families. They don't want to be those losers.

In my experience..and I'm from the US, and I work in rural areas - so obviously this may not be yours - it is more useful for us as advocates to understand those concerns and be seen as something other than "the other guys" than it is to understand our ideologies ad copy. Objections like these shouldn't blindside you. I've been there, too. Don't get me wrong. What I learned, was that it helped to have a specific local example of how an operation or entity like the ones we're trying to court made inroads (and money) for when they crop up. That canned response you offered is a non-starter...even if it's true.

- - - Updated - - -

-takes off devils advocate hat-

I think that nuclear power was the energy production system of the future...in 1950. It could have been a great transition, but that ship has sailed. It's not even remotely my area of expertise, but as I understand it, the new gen reactors are really sweet pieces of equipment, but I think we should probably lean into newer developments. Laying aside thorny issues like proliferation, if the choice were solely between burning fossil fuels and nukes, nukes all the way. That opinion of mine is largely limited to developed nation (for a whole host of reasons). I actually don't think that we can get too upset about a country making judicious use of as little fossil fuel as possible in order to rapidly develop. That's what we did, and all of our sustainable tech has, as it;s beating heart, some amount of fossil fuel consumption. Very real concerns over human QOL can, in my mind, trump concerns over the environment over limited spans of time.

[Azvanna]

The people I've been working with for all of this time have heard those punitive arguments, and, clearly, it doesn't address their concerns. It only strengthens them. Moreover, the very moment we decide to use the words "less profitable" we'll have lost every business minded and/or poor ear in a room. I think that it's a mistake to write off "the other side" as though they had no legitimate concerns, or to respond to those legitimate concerns with an authoritarian solution that will not, and cannot, address them. When we speak of legislation as though it can be achieved in a wholly one-sided manner, we're deluding ourselves. That's not how legislation works...and I don't think that any of us really want it to work that way.

I really hope I'm on the right track here. Without really clear objections, I'm not sure what to give you.

A Carbon Fee and Dividend will not mean the immediate end of business if that's what the people you are working with are concerned about. There will be a period of time where businesses have the opportunity to tranisition to renewables and the carbon fee will make it more profitable to do so. The point of a carbon fee is not to put people out of business. It is to transition the way business is conducted away from one source of power.

Let me lay it out for you.

A carbon fee is applied to fossil fuels at the point of entry into the economy, ie at the mine or at the port. That fee steadily rises every year until the final fee is introduced at the five year mark. The revenue gained from that fee is then distributed evenly to every adult citizen at tax time, every year for as long as the fee is in place. According to research, Citizen's Climate Lobby states that middle to low income earners will be better off from the very first year even if they don't change the way they use fossil fuels. So under this plan, ordinary citizens are better off. When ordinary citizens are better off, businesses benefit because people spend more.

The concerns I hear most often are ones surrounding the cost of remediation,

Remediation from what? I sense we are talking about this subject from vastly different levels of understanding.

In the absence of a specific plan beyond "legislate against them"...and without any exploration of how it might be that they could interface with this new future we dream of,

The plan is to use the price mechanism to transition businesses and individuals away from using fossil fuels as their source of power.
How you interface with this is: use a more affordable source of power when it is made available.

it's ludicrous to consider their misgivings as unfounded.

No one is saying that misgivings around having to pay more for stuff is unfounded, but it is the point. If money is the bottom line, then money has to be the driver for the change we need to see our way of life continue. Civilisation is at the point of another revolution. It is a revolution based on the experience of what happens when our way of doing business becomes counter-productive. When our businesses are abusing our earth's resources (real things) for the sake of an imagined idea (currency) to the point of an environmental disaster on a global scale (mass extinction of species, food shortages, natural disasters et al), something has to change. Yes, changing the way we do business creates challenges. But with challenges and change comes new opportunities. I'm excited to see where this era of sustainability will lead.

What I learned, was that it helped to have a specific local example of how an operation or entity like the ones we're trying to court made inroads (and money) for when they crop up.

A carbon fee and dividend is not without precedent. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...emissions.html

Businesses benefit when consumers have more money. Under the carbon fee and dividend plan, the businesses most likely to be bearing the brunt of the cost are the really heavy polluters. In Australia, that means companies like AGL that own coal-fired power stations. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...14-p4zf43.html It is from these businesses that ordinary Australians will be receiving most of their Dividend. Yes, these companies may simply increase the cost of power, but that cost is regulated by our government, the Australian Energy Regulator. This means that some of the fee can be passed on to consumers but not all. It is expected that businesses will transition away from fossil fuels and invest in developing renewable energy ready for a receptive market. This is already happening in South Australia https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-au...es-next-79597/ who source 50% of its power through renewable energy. South Australia is the size of France and Germany combined and has a population of around 1.7 million. A transition to renewables can be done profitably if big businesses are elastic enough to adjust.

[Rhythm]

What will they be adjusting into? Will there be more renewable energy available before the taxes are in place? Who's spearheading that, are they well funded, and when do they expect to have increased capacity?

- - - Updated - - -

Additionally, what reason is there to expect that an increase in consumer activity attributed to a dividend will be funneled towards those businesses that will see higher overhead through regulation? Are people likely to buy more clothes and tvs, or more green left handed widgets?

Perhaps even more fundamental, is there a plan to retain producers when those higher costs make offshoring an attractive option, particularly if they can avail themselves of lower labor and lesser regulation...and the dividend, by import?

[Azvanna]

What will they be adjusting into? Will there be more renewable energy available before the taxes are in place? Who's spearheading that, are they well funded, and when do they expect to have increased capacity?

The fee/tax will only be paid once. So businesses and people do not get taxed when they use a refined fossil fuel like petrol for their car or power for their homes. They will be paying a higher price for these goods only because the fee imposed on mining/energy companies will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

While there is currently an abundance of renewable energy sources available (solar panels come to mind), it is thought that the big energy companies (like AGL in Australia) will themselves be producing wind and solar farms. This is because:
1. there will be more profits in renewables because there won't be a fee imposed on its production and
2. There will be a consumer demand for renewable energy because of the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
As you say, shareholders of big mining companies are not moustache twirling villains, they are just making sure they're not the losers. When governments add into the pricing of fossil fuels its social cost, then we begin to align economic and ecological benefits.

Additionally, what reason is there to expect that an increase in consumer activity attributed to a dividend will be funneled towards those businesses that will see higher overhead through regulation? Are people likely to buy more clothes and tvs, or more green left handed widgets?

Which businesses do you think will see higher overheads?

Perhaps even more fundamental, is there a plan to retain producers when those higher costs make offshoring an attractive option, particularly if they can avail themselves of lower labor and lesser regulation...and the dividend, by import?

Border adjustments can be made. The Executive Summary of Australian Climate Dividend Plan states:

'Under the plan, border adjustments for traded goods would mean that Australian indusry would not be put at a competitive disadvantage. Exports to countries without comparible schemes would receive rebates for the taxes paid. Imports from countries without such schemes would be charged fees based on the carbon content of those products.

.

[Rhythm]

The fee/tax will only be paid once. So businesses and people do not get taxed when they use a refined fossil fuel like petrol for their car or power for their homes. They will be paying a higher price for these goods only because the fee imposed on mining/energy companies will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

Meaning that the tax will, in fact, be uniform and not "one time" - or even limited to mining companies or energy producers. This is what I mean by ideological ad copy. It's a form of (sometimes)well meaning doublespeak. I've learned, over the years, to lay out the potential commercial carnage plainly and without apology. This prevents a situation where you set yourself up to be seen as a minimizing apologist. In my opinion, time spent minimizing or occluding these sorts of facts with semantics is better spent addressing those concerns with whatever contingencies are already in place or will be in place to directly address them. This isn't foolproof, as we'll see below, still...it's something to think about. It is a fact that the modern economy is predicate on a specific form of energy/consumption economy. While we might doubt that a business x will become wholly unprofitable on account of tax y..it will still, then, be a fact that at least some businesses x will be a relatively poor use of capital in a new economy of tax y, with respect to some other business z.

If this were -not- true, if these changes could -not- change energy/consumption, then what would the point of economic disruption be in the first place? The end goal, either explicitly or implicitly, is to drive ecologically irresponsible business out of business. This must, by necessity be coupled with a specific transition plan for affected industry. Another caveat, that we'll also see at play shortly..is that while we might address these concerns rationally, markets do not operate rationally, in reality, as opposed to theory.

While there is currently an abundance of renewable energy sources available (solar panels come to mind), it is thought that the big energy companies (like AGL in Australia) will themselves be producing wind and solar farms. This is because:
1. there will be more profits in renewables because there won't be a fee imposed on its production and
2. There will be a consumer demand for renewable energy because of the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
As you say, shareholders of big mining companies are not moustache twirling villains, they are just making sure they're not the losers. When governments add into the pricing of fossil fuels its social cost, then we begin to align economic and ecological benefits.

Is there an abundance of renewables, though? Does renewable production exceed peak consumption? I find that hard to believe (though I deeply wish it were true). If it's not, this is another example of ideological ad copy. In theory there may be an abundance..or there may be an abundance Some Day(tm)as in the sun falls on ground not covered by solar and the wind blows in places without wind...but......Some Day(tm) is not today, and no business can survive long without sufficient power or product.

Speaking of Some Day(tm)...some day there may be more profit in renewables, but even on that day, does the increased profit cover the cost of refitting current infrastructure and does the remainder of that calculation make renewables -comparatively- better than non renewables, either at point of production or down the chain of supply? Is the difference enough to coax inconsequentially irrational market actors? I'd say that the difference would have to be significantly better than the return on a low yield federal bond, or else it actually makes sense to continue business as usual and plow the proceeds into financial instruments rather than infrastructure upgrades with marginal (comparative) return. An individual or entity can always buy into the earth later when the results are less ambiguous, saving themselves lost opportunity cost in the interim.

This is the dilemma of the free rider. It's at least possible (and I would say certain) that the cost of environmental responsibility will be borne by the few while those who do not invest or who do not take that hit will benefit all the same. From the standpoint of environmentally conscious action this doesn't bother me. It's likely that it doesn't bother you, either. It does and will continue to bother those who bear that cost as overhead, however, and rightly so. OTOH, consumers will not cease to demand a product simply because it has risen in price. A great many products are either necessary no matter the cost, or so greatly desired that the cost is decoration, or even desired precisely because of the cost. No one ever bought a Hummer because it was cheaper or more environmentally conscious than a Bolt, or even a Silverado...and all three products are made by the same company. The Bolt is the cheapest of the three, in fact, and the most environmentally sound, and yet it accounts for a fraction of sales. Clearly, something other than a pure calculation of cost is at play in consumer demand.

The owners of the local car lot are not only not mustache twirling villains, they're not "big companies" either. The "us v them" implication may be useful for making a populist appeal, but it's not grounded in reality. Meanwhile, renewables as a sector, which is dominated by big business (mostly chinese) are wholly consumer demand driven and not at all the low cost option. Nor, for that matter..in their current state, could they ever be. Solar panel production (just as one example) leverages abusive labor and environmental policies, in addition to a phenomenal hidden fossil fuel cost in mines and foundries almost exclusively tucked away in third world countries. This wasn't the case many years ago with excess material from chip production in the US seen as a way to monetize the waste stream, but that's all gone now..even before we try to increase their market value with the punitive taxation of the very industries upon which their manufacture depends.

Aside from all of the above, it's best to remember that all taxation has social costs, we're merely shifting numbers around in a their respective columns. So, too, does industry realignment..regardless of the worthiness of it's cause by some other metric. There's an immense amount of negligence involved in selling a green future as though it's wholly and exclusively comprised of upside and benefit. It's not, and can never be. If it truly were, then, again, it would have no power to change how we live or consume. No lever by which abusive but useful and desired products could be reduced or eliminated. There must be a downside, even if that downside is contained to industries and products that we, personally, may not care about or may actively want to memory hole. Those things are still other peoples means of livelihood.

Which businesses do you think will see higher overheads?

It would be impossible to speak to specifics without you doxxing yourself, and I'm a person acutely aware of the risks of linking ones private digital persona with ones public face (particularly in this sector and climate) - but I can speak to generalities. -Everything-. Everything is affected by energy disruptions, but punitive environmental taxes impact things that it's supporters don't usually imagine. Agricultural production is profoundly impacted by just a fraction of a percent of change in fossil fuels. As are small businesses of any kind, because they don't have the ability to build a warchest to outlast disruption, and usually cannot survive long enough to see the other end of a changing consumer demand - which is what the majority of green initiatives currently rely on. Make no mistake, going green is a consumer activity. You have to want it for reasons other than the cost. Even as a business owner you'll want it for reasons other than cost. It's an immensely profitable niche, where everyone needs a new everything to replace all the old dirty somethings. The idea behind green initiatives is to enlarge that niche without reducing it's inherent profitability (so far as it goes, as a 1st world obsession). I'm not knocking it, here..and keep in mind that even playing devils advocate I'm still a person whose spent half their life and every penny I have doing this. I could have taken this same level of comprehension and used it to well and truly rape the earth, and well-meaning earth loving individuals, for immense personal profit. Just stating a fact for what it is.

Border adjustments can be made. The Executive Summary of Australian Climate Dividend Plan states: .

Economic protectionism and legislative isolation has, historically, never been the answer to anything. Even more ironically, it brings us right back to the initial objection I made as devils advocate. We can wall off the first world all we like, and we can put our own industries at a pronounced disadvantage, and we can farm our productive capacity with punitive taxes like so many heads of cabbage......but unless the rest of the world remains in a state of ecologically principled poverty and degradation, in perpetuity - we're just polishing brass on the titanic in what would have to be the most impressive example of low information consumers deluding themselves into thinking that their wallet can save the world.

- - - Updated - - -

-apologies for that wall-o-text, lol. I bottle up my concerns about the green movement just like I bottle up my concerns about it's antithesis so that I can be a more effective on-the-ground agent for transition. It's my position, and not without some considerable demonstration, that the majority of the green space is cover for political ideology. Not a practical roadmap to a better future. Knowing just a little bit about what I do you can see how that might grind on me more than some denier saying climate change isn't real while rolling coal in his converted mudtruck. I think that the practical realities of human life will eventually force us to go green whether we like it or not, in essence, all roads lead to a greener future. The greatest threat to that future, in that view, is the kind of subversion currently drawing in all of the oxygen in the room. It's not the people outside of the tent that we have to worry about anymore - the murderer is calling from inside the house.

- - - Updated - - -

To add to the above, with the cap off, it's not that I think that the plan you're practicing for as an advocate is a bad one in and of itself. It;s just that I can see that it's half baked. I don't think that you or anyone else should stop advocating for it, and even though I can point out that it depends on populist appeals and "don;t you worry your pretty little head" retorts to objection...that;s not a reason -not- to do it. I do think, though, it;s a reason to push those concerns up the chain of command so that they have a better response than "if things don't go according to our dubious plan, we'll think of something". If, for no other reason, so that you have something other than that to say if or when that objection arises.

We should all demand more than vague top down directives.

[Azvanna]

Rhythm, I'm so glad to have met you. I hope that you will be somehow involved in America's introduction and transition to the Green New Deal.

I'll be back with more thoughts soon, I really want to give this the time it deserves. I'm not as well practised at some of quickly converting ideas into the written word.

[Rhythm]

No worries. Take all the time you need. That;s the point of the thread, right. To help you practice a slick and comprehensive presentation that leaves no room to wonder wiggle or waffle.

LOL, I hope we come up with a green new deal for me to plug into, personally. I'm not convinced or even hopeful that we will. I think that it's much more likely that the US response will be bottom up, rather than top down. That's been the most productive and least disruptive avenue thusfar. Decoupling the issue from partisan politics, making it a matter of practicality and engineering rather than activism and theory.

A green new deal probably isn't an economic or even an ecological necessity, but it is a national security issue and a lifeline to rural and urban blight. The affected industries will eventually die a thoroughly natural death, so we'd best get to some hardcore industrial planning before the problem arises. Nobody wants to have to search for a flashlight in the dark, right?

[Azvanna]

So Rythm I have been thinking about your post every day. So here I am for the upteenth time reading everything through. So many good points and I want to address the main objections you have which can be summed up here:

This must, by necessity be coupled with a specific transition plan for affected industry.

Which you identify as being small businesses and agriculture. Right? I've been reading through the Australian Climate Dividend Plan document and I can't find anything that specifically address how businesses are expected to transition. So I sent an email to my regional co-ordinator.

You make so many great points in this post, especially this one:

It's my position, and not without some considerable demonstration, that the majority of the green space is cover for political ideology. Not a practical roadmap to a better future.

This carbon fee is what I hope could accelerate and be part of the the roadmap to a better future.

It does seem as though consumer trends are heading towards renewables without much government intervention. I'd love to hurry it up though. I'm hoping that's what a carbon fee might do. An electric car in my country is three times my annual salary. I could install solar panels on my roof but I'm only going to be here for 3 years and so I won't even pay them off before I move. I can't afford to make many changes to my lifestyle right now with infrastructure the way it is at the moment. I do the best I can with what I have and am hoping to influence changes so that I have better access to green choices.

[Rhythm]

Small business and ag are good barometers for whether or not a plan actually has a plan, yeah. Small businesses represent the most vulnerable, and ag is (usually) one of the highest producers of greenhouse gasses.

Things like easier access to sba loans and/or generous tax credits for transition. Subsidy to low footprint ag production models. Things that actually make some green thing less expensive to the consumer, rather than making some dirty thing more expensive.

As you noted, the price of an electric car is three times your salary, but a carbon tax isn't going to make it more feasible or economic for you to buy an electric car rather than continue to use your gas one. You don't need convincing or nudging, you need access. I suspect that this is the situation that the vast majority of green minded consumers are in. It's the same for any business.

[Azvanna]

Okay Rhythm, I'm just going to copy and paste the reply your question got from my regional co-ordinator and then make observations:

A) “Agricultural production is profoundly impacted by just a fraction of a percent of change in fossil fuels”



I do not know what fuel costs are as a fraction of various agricultural activities costs. I can imagine it would be significant so have a significant impact on the cost of production.

A price on carbon extraction would of course, increase in price of fossil fuel derived from the extraction of oil from oil fields.

This carbon price is intended to drive innovation to power farming equipment in other ways - the whole point of pricing carbon.

Other equipment powering options would be electric & hydrogen (derived from renewables) and bio fuel (derived from organic matter).

(The Ken Davey 9 November National Call gave interesting info on “Biogas in the Circular Economy” https://au.citizensclimatelobby.org/...nthly-meeting/)


Of course, farmers are expected to pass the increased cost on (as for all other sectors) and since citizens have the collected money as dividends they should be able to pay the increased food and clothing costs.



B) “As are small businesses of any kind”

Not sure that is true – Surely there must be some small business where fuel costs are a small fraction of operating costs.

However, in any case whether there are or are not the points do not change.



C) because they don't have the ability to build a warchest to outlast disruption, cannot survive long enough to see the other end of a changing consumer demand - which is what the majority of green initiatives currently rely on."



I agree that small business often do not have the same access to capital (finances) as large businesses.

Thus they may have a greater difficulty in financing the low emission technology than a large organisation.



Large organisations often have an “economy of scale” advantage which what has been a major driver in past changes in many sectors of our economy. E.g. Large supermarkets driving out the small corner shop.



This trend is not being driven by “green initiatives” it seems to be a fundamental part of our current economic system.

(I recall demonstration of this phenonium was one of the motivations for the design of the Monopoly board game)



I am not an economists, but we can all see that some small business owners have managed to counteract this trend by operating as cooperatives. They share resources and costs across their membership. This same strategy may be effective here e.g. sharing a hydrogen powered tractor.



I do not understand what is meant by “cannot survive long enough to see the other end of a changing consumer demand”

The need to address greenhouse emissions will not be a passing fashion or consumer choice trend.



Also I do not understand “which is what the majority of green initiatives currently rely on”

I am not sure what “green initiatives” the person has in mind. In any case, what other green initiatives have or have not relied on may not be relevant.

The main point seems to be “So if the ACDP is introduced, how can small businesses and agriculture make a transition to renewables in a way that won't put them out of business? “



I take your point that small business and small holding farmers (family farm) has challenges and have trouble competing with larger organisations.

These challenges exist regardless of climate change &/or carbon pricing.



I take your point that carbon pricing does require changes to low emission infrastructure to improve competitive advantage.

I do not see this as a reason to delay carbon pricing as if we do not address climate change super-fast we will all face even more challenges of decreasing crop yields.



Farmers and small business will need to continue to lobby governments to give incentives to make such changes.

Farmers have significant electoral power through the Nationals political party.


There are presidents e.g. government bonuses for home owners installing roof top solar panels.

In some countries there are financial advantages for EV owners with reduced rego and other taxes – why not low emission farm & small business low emission infrastructure & equipment.

So a couple of key statements here: This carbon price is intended to drive innovation. It's the pressure of dealing with the cost that is to spark problem solving efforts.
Farmers and small businesses have the pathway to lobby Members of Parliament/Senators as needed.