Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Elon Musk, the renewable energy entrepreneur, has given a speech in which he claims that a robust carbon tax would grossly enlarge his profits speed the global transition to clean energy.
According to The Guardian;
Innovator tells Sorbonne students that failing to price in damage done by carbon pollution is a $5.3tn a year subsidy for the fossil fuel industry
Addressing students at the Sorbonne University on the sidelines of the Paris climate summit, the electric car, Powerwall battery and space tycoon said the obvious solution to runaway global warming was to remove the effective subsidy of not pricing the damage done by carbon pollution, urging the students to campaign and lobby governments to implement the policy.
“To make it neither a left nor right issue we should make it a revenue-neutral carbon tax – increasing carbon tax and reducing tax in other areas like consumption taxes or VAT and in order to give companies time to react it should be a phased in approach,” he said.
“If countries agree to a carbon tax and it’s real and it’s not super watered down and weak we could see a transition [to clean energy] that has a 15- to 20-year timeframe as opposed to a 40- or 50-year timeframe, we could probably cut it in half and that would have a huge impact on the … welfare of the world … it really matters where we do this transition sooner or later.”
“For developing economies, they could leapfrog the fossil fuel situation with power lines, you could have remote villages with solar panels and a battery pack. Just like mobile phones – a lot of countries just didn’t do the landlines, they skipped right over landlines.”
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/elon-musk-says-robust-carbon-tax-would-speed-global-clean-energy-transition
The problem with the “skipping over” theory is it completely ignores the reality of poverty. Poor countries in Africa and elsewhere are struggling to afford what Musk claims is a “subsidised” price for fossil fuel electricity, let alone paying high upfront costs for renewables.
Worse, when energy needs change, heavy dependence on renewables, to the exclusion of other sources of energy, can throttle economic growth.
For example, WUWT recently reported how Zambia is struggling to balance soaring demand for energy from mining companies, energy which is mostly sourced from renewable hydro schemes, with the need to supply water for irrigation and drinking. The obvious solution is for Zambia to use their resources revenue to build a few cheap coal generators, to provide their mining boom with all the energy it needs to flourish, without ruining local farmers. But this solution would be unavailable to Zambia, if Elon Musk has his way.
I love what Musk has done for the space race. I even once wrote a positive article about Musk’s solar business. But to try to bar poor people from access to cheap fossil fuels with a global carbon tax, to condemn them to continued brutal poverty, to palm them off with low intensity local energy solutions, which prevent poor people from experiencing real economic development – in my view, that would just be wrong.
I am OK with the tax, provided everyone has to pay the tax for their ‘consequences’ as well. Fair’s fair.
The carbon footprint of ‘renewables’ is massive and the price of ‘renewables’ is only as ‘low’ as it is because they do not have to manufacture it with power from renewables without subsidies, of course. The renewables are made using power from coal and hydro. For the most part, it is coal, not so much hydro.
Elon’s batteries are an extremely expensive way to try to store usable electricity for making….batteries. His Power Wall would cost many times more if it’s manufacturing were powered by solar PV.
The fact that Google engineers have admitted they cannot even run Google servers using renewables is proof enough that they will never be able to manufacture servers and hard disks and operate them.
Remember how Ballard Energy in Burnaby, BC was going to solve the storage problem? It’s now a small specialty fuel cell company. They sold their fuel cell technology to Daimler and Ford as they couldn’t make one that was cost effective for automobiles.
They have worked hard at it for 35+ years, always with great hope just around the corner. Someday. But not today. Good for them for trying though.
FYI… Ballard’s hydrogen is extracted from natural gas.
Extracting hydrogen from natural gas yields carbon polution as a waste product
Will Musk’s greed and lust for power ever stop?
Boney m Rasputin?
Bottom line: Rich get richer, poor get poorer. No change in temperatures.
What I find most interesting about this mindset is how much the left embraces it. I have been lambasted on several forums over the years for supporting the variations of the “fair tax”. I was told this is a tax for the wealthy and keeps the poor down even when I explained we could set the level of tax reimbursement higher or whatever else to make sure it burdens the low and middle classes no more or even less then the current system. Yet many of the same people see no issues heavily taxing energy?
Personally even if I thought this was a major issue, this seems the wrong way to go entirely. Rather we need workable affordable solutions first. thorium reactors? solar arrays beaming energy from space? no idea, but unless we can retain most of our current level of lifestyle its just going to fail anyway imo. People will just vote in those who dismantle whatevers built.
The argument should not be based on the impact it would have on the poor. If the assumption that the use of hydrocarbons burdens us with $5.3tn then carbon should be taxed. We could then see how we go about helping the poor.
However, I would question calling CO2 emissions “carbon pollution” and challenge Elon Musk to document his 5.3 trillion. Maybe CO2 is preventing us from going into an Ice Age. Maybe it is feeding plants and helping green desert areas. Maybe it is warming the planet which will open new areas for human habitation. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe Elon Musk makes his money from government subsidies and is not such a great businessman. I do not know.
What does SpaceX power it’s rockets with? Unicorn farts? (Sorry, the answer is liquid oxygen and RP-1 … RP stands for Refined Petroleum – basically high grade kerosene) But that’s ok, cause it’s for the common good, right? Spell h_p_c_i_e. It’s just business promotion so that’s ok, we understand.
An Al Capone for our time!
Capo di tutti i frutti e noci
That was great. Thanks!
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations.
I notice that the above quote went to moderation. Because it contains the “c” word.
But, now that it is posted, it can be used by Lewandowsky as the basis of his latest psychological paper on the link between skepticism and not agreeing with Lewandowsky.
Lewandowsky can add Adam Smith to a cherry picked list of c*nsp*r*cy theorists, who support libertarian politics!!!
“Elon Musk – a Robust Carbon Tax would Speed the Clean Energy Transition”
==========
Why not a robust tax on poor people to and poverty? Or how about a tax on sick people to end disease? Or a tax on criminals to and crime? Or a tax on Isis to wipe out terrorism?
Seriously. If taxing something will get rid of the thing being taxed, why not tax drugs? If climate change is such a big problem how come fossil fuekfuels are legal and pot is illegal? Does that mean that reefer madness is a greater threat than climate change? Because the laws sure seem to indicate it is.
ferdberple
Ah, but you do miss the (intended) effect of taxes (raising revenue from those who will pay the tax (and can pay the tax), to give to those who will vote for the ones who will tax other people BUT who will pay the ones voting for the taxers.
Thus, fossil fuels (a needed and essential part of life to those who live (1/2 of whom pay taxes)) IS a revenue source BECAUSE it is essential to modern life. Reefers and dopers – NOT a tax source of tax revenue, and who ordinarily won’t pay taxes anyway since they are already outside of the law – don’t care whether you tax weed and dope or not.
That is my point. If government could end a problem by taxing the problem there would be no problems because there is no end to taxes.
“Revenue neutral tax” This is the same thing as a unicorn. Fictional. It is a fictional construct created to make the gullible believe they’ll not see less money in their wallet over time. Implement a carbon tax and watch for the other taxes to fall… No, I think I’d prefer not to try that. Thanks for the entertaining attempt to steal from us once again.
So why doesn’t the US implement a revenue neutral tax on gun violence? If taxes are the answer then tax the beejesus out of folks that hose down their neighborhood with automatic weapons. i can hear the politicians already. Don’t you go setting off any bombs now, or we will sick a revenue neutral tax on your ass.
That will just lead them to crank up their drug sales to pay their tax bills. 🙁
There is a stain of failure of Elon Musk’s shining armor. No more public money for him. Carbon tax is public money by another means.
I have learned and had reinforced over several decades the idea that “evil” is the willingness to allow other people to suffer.
Musk, in his infatuation with his ideals for humanity regardless of their actual effects on people, is drifting in that direction.
I think we should look at making the playing field even. Put a 30% to 100% tax on ALL vehicles from bicycles to Smart Cars, to Telsa, to every gasoline and diesel vehicle. The goal is to maintain our road systems; and to encourage people to travel less, thus using fewer resources. Telsa’s have the same tire wear leaving rubber bits in the ditch, you still need to put gravel and salt on the winter roads, you still need to fix potholes but if there are less vehicles, less maintenance.
Yes, I know it affects the poor more. Give them a subsidy from a “Revenue Neutral tax” 😉 But having worked in developing countries where a vehicle had huge import taxes making vehicles twice or more the North American or Japanese cost, it clearly reduced the number of vehicles on the road. (Thailand at one time had a 300% import duty.) Transportation for most was by bus. taxi, bicycle or motor scooter. This was a simple thought out solution by several governments back in the 90’s when I worked overseas to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. It also lead to a huge black market but that is another issue.
An exemption for big rigs hauling freight would be fine, they’ll pay at the pump. Telsa should also pay at the “pump” just like the gasoline and diesel drinkers.
Make the playing field even. How about that, Elon?
Of course if you have ever been to any of those countries, you know how well that kind of tax reduced pollution. Do I need a Sarc tag on any of this?
Actually, Singapore has implemented a system of high car taxes (called COE), time of day road taxes (ERP) and high fuel taxes. It has by far the least traffic problems of any big city in Asia, and the least pollution of any country.
A robust carbon tax would speed the environmental destruction in second and third-world nations, and accelerate the effort of politicians, journalists, teachers, activists, and “green” entrepreneurs to obfuscate and deny the environmental disruption and corruption caused by “green” technologies excluding drivers.
Perhaps he would like to restate his vision with a frame-based argument.
a Robust Carbon Tax would Speed the CleanED MONEY Transition into Elon Musk’s bank account.
Google (or DuckDuckGo) Elon Musk Rent Seeker.
I’m as mad as Hell and I’m not goina take it anymore
I’m as mad as Hell and I’m not goina take it anymore
I like the Tesla, but hate that it is a rich boy’s toy that is supported by poor people’s taxes.
I love his outlook on space but hate that he is a crony capitalist whose wealth is greatly dependent on taking money from productive areas and funneling it into his (and his pals) wallets.
News flash. Government making billion off carbon taxes decides it wants taxes (carbon ) to continue.
Anyone that thinks the government will want to end a carbon cash cow is either a liar or a fool. The government will end up creating co2 as a means of increasing taxes.
Odd isn’t it? In the past, new ideas developed, were developed, and became “the next best thing” simply by being good and economical. Yet when it comes to alternative energy, no one wants to invest in developing it better. We might have worthwhile energy coming from solar and wind if there was a “smarter and more efficient” system, yet they developed an idea part way and want to make a killing on the half azzed idea before they do additional research to make it only a quarter-azzed idea, and then a better idea. Alternative energy isn’t the only thing that suffers from this technique, but it is the current “big thing” that does. Are solar panels a good idea? I would say so if there was an efficient way to convert and store its output, but they don’t really want to develop a better panel until they have saturated the world with the half-azzed panels. As soon as the marketplace is saturated, they will bring out “the next best thing,” probably already tested and ready for market so they can saturate the recycle centers with the last batch.
This is, of course, only possible by subsidy and tax support for true market forces would never accept the half azzed product in the first place. It’s a game the rich play because no matter how much money they have, if you still have a dollar or euro or a pound or whatever currency in your pocket, they don’t have enough. As for a carbon tax? It’s just another demonstration of “greed” over “need.” and if anyone thinks for a second that the money drain is from the wealthy nations to the poor nations, you are way off base. It is from the middle class and down from every nation to the richest people in the world, because for some, there just is no such thing as “enough money.” Don’t worry only about the existing poor, because the intent of something like a carbon tax is add to the numbers, not to subtract from them, and it won’t matter what country they are in.
Let’s propose a consumption tax,no subsidies, no income tax only tax on purchase of new products. Let Al Gore and the like pay the 22% when they need to replace their jets. Let the person who wants a $150 sneaker pay the 22% also. This will encourage thrift. With no income tax everyone’s income will increase and underground economy would vanish as there is no need in hiding your income if it’s not taxed. The government will get its cut when you spend it. If you don’t like taxes then don’t buy anything. This will encourage thrift-but I repeat myself.
I think that : “Elon Musk, the renewable energy entrepreneur, has given a speech in which he claims that a robust carbon tax would grossly enlarge his profits.” gives a very clear explanation of what is really happening. It can be extended to much of the rest of Warmista activity. Without the lure of money, the leading players would not bother to get out of bed.
Whoa there. How much fossil fuels were used to get the raw materials, manufacture, transport, assemble on various sites and then to support. Lets include that in the cost of Musks impractical, costly, wasteful, poor people strangling, economy wrecking boondoggle.
Also perhaps Musk can explain of the consumers who installed solar on their homes 60% had horror stories about financing, installation, and performance. giving a 1 star rating (five star is highest rating), and additional 4% give a 2 star rating. To put it in perspective if you install solar on your home you have a 2 to 1 chance of being screwed. In renewables this is a characteristic of a “mature” industry.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/solar-energy/#for-you-2
Not to mention that government subsidies is like the weather, unpredictable as in California recently excluding rooftop solar.
Spot on !
Elon Musk is a grifter working a long con, nothing more. Nothing he says should be taken seriously — and keep your hand on your wallet while listening to him.
Why would Musk push the carbon tax other than to make his solar companies more profitable?
Taxing carbon would raise the cost of “clean” energy. Try charging one of Tesla’s cars with roof top solar panels. The free market will always be more efficient at using energy than any plan proposed by government. The “clean” energy systems only appear reasonable because cheaper fossil fuel energy is being used for the manufacture, transportation, installation, and maintenance. Elon best be stocking his preps at a South American bunker because soon enough his name will be mud.