The Missing Element in Kaine’s Green Jobs Initiative: Private Capital

Earlier this month, Arlington-based Positive Energy raised $14 million in a second round of venture funding. Positive Energy has developed a software analytics platform that it sells to electric power companies implementing demand-response programs to encourage energy conservation and loading shifting. As the company web site explains, it’s one thing to adopt time-of-use pricing and similar peak-demand initiatives, it’s quite another to persuade consumers to use them. The company contends that its solutions can bridge the gap between economic theory and marketplace reality.

Positive Energy is expanding — it is currently trying to fill 13 positions in IT, sales, finance and product development.

Does Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who touted his “green jobs” initiative in his state of the Commonwealth speech, understand where green jobs come from? Does he understand the role played by entrepreneurs, angel capital, venture capital and the entrepreneurial support network?

I’m not sure he does. If he does, it’s not apparent in his speech. While Kaine advanced some good ideas like retrofitting state buildings to green energy standards (See “Kaine’s ‘Green Jobs’ Initiative“), he resorted to a pretty stale package of proposals on the economic development front.

University research. Kaine has created an “interagency task force” for energy project recruitment to “build the case” for renewable energy-related businesses to invest in Virginia. “Virginia has a tremendous natural advantage in this area through the research being done at Virginia colleges and universities,” Kaine explained. “Every institution in Virginia is working on innovative new energy projects—transportation fuel cells at Virginia Tech, energy-efficient buildings at UVA, algae-based biodiesel at ODU, and new energy crops at Virginia State University.”

Terrific. How do we take advantage of all that research? Says Kaine: “Technology-based economic development organizations” (does that mean the Center for Innovative Technology?) will build a single Internet portal where investors can access information about the research. Wow. Back off, California, Virginia’s building a web site!

Tax incentives. No economic development program would be complete without grants, tax incentives and regulations. These include:

  • Expand an existing incentive for solar manufacturers to include new plants that make other alternative energy equipment and products.
  • Enact a requirement that biodiesel should comprise 2% of diesel fuel sold in Virginia.
  • Enact an income tax credit of up to $8,000 on solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind-power electric generators installed in homes or businesses in Virginia.

Unfortunately, the Kaine package doesn’t do anything to promote companies like Positive Energy. Silicon Valley venture capital is transforming the economics of renewable energy, electric vehicles and energy conservation by underwriting a wave of technologies, some of which are already entering the marketplace. (More on that in a week or two.) The Washington-area venture capital network isn’t as deep as Silicon Valley’s, but it’s one of the strongest on the East Coast. And it’s well positioned geographically near the seat of national government, where all manner of “green” boodle and pork will soon begin flowing. If Virginia is to develop an economically sustainable “green” industry, critical financial support and human capital will come out of NoVa.

There’s nothing wrong with pursuing green industry (other than the fact that every other state in the country is vying for the same market). But it’s going to take a lot more than a web site and a smattering of tax incentives lacking strategic focus to do so.

If the governor wants to do something useful during his last year in office, he should convene a “green industry” summit that brings the established energy/environmental companies, would-be entrepreneurs, financiers, university researchers, intellectual property attorneys and other supporting professionals into the same place at the same time so they can begin networking and deal making. Ultimately, it’s all about putting the right people together.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

30 responses to “The Missing Element in Kaine’s Green Jobs Initiative: Private Capital”

  1. Groveton Avatar

    Great post. Here’s my question – who owns the data? Let’s say that Dominion installs smart meters. These meters capture data about the electrical use in my house. Now what? Presumably, I can log onto a Dominion web site and look at my data. That’s not good enough. I should have the right to download my data and ship it anywhere I want. In fact, I should be able to designate a site where I want the data shipped on a continual basis. Why? I have a lot more confidence in the innovative capabilities of applications written on Google’s network / platform than I have on Dominion’s servers. If Dominion can compete with their analytics – fine. I’ll use Dominion but there’s no reason to force me to only Dominion. In addition, if you want people to use less energy you can certainly make it more expensive. People will remember to turn the lights off more often and they will look twice before they buy the next refrigerator. That’s all good. That’s all relatively minor. There will be improvement but it will plateau. What a homeowner really needs is more data about what is using the energy. If it’s the heater or air conditioner – where is heat being transferred into / out of the house? No smart meter will tell you that. What will tell you are air flow sensors. Wait – you say – that sounds might expensive. Not really. Here’s an example – Apple and Nike have combined to create a running system that lets joggers track how far and fast they run. How does it work? You buy a sensor for one of your running shoes. It’s battery operated and fits inside one shoe. Then, you get a bluetooth transponded that fits onto an iPod. When you start running the iPod electronically detects the sensor in your shoe and counts your strides. You distance and speed is stored on the iPod while you run. In addition, of course, the iPod plays music at the same time. When you are done running you take the iPod, connect it to your computer and the data from your run is uploaded to a Nike site. How much for the sensor and transponder? $29.

    In your home you would take air flow sensors and place them near doors, windows, etc. The sensors would detect air flow and temperature. They would communicate over the WiFi network that many people have installed in their homes. Your computer collects and tracks the data. Now what? Where is the equivalent of the Nike site for runners? Where do I send my data to be correleated against the smart meter data? Dominion? That’s a joke, right? No. I send everything to my Google account. Then I select from many applications written by different people / companies to analyze my data and make suggestions. Google sells ads to companies that make things like low energy appliances which play on the sidebar of the site. The ads pay for the web site and the analysis application. Everybody’s happy! Except perhaps Dominion. Because once I am Google, I can compare my electricity rates and service levels with people across the US served by other power companies.

    What’s the key? I need to own my own data. Will the GA demand this from their chums at Dominion? Would any of the part time legislators even understand this?

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton — good comment. Businesses, for sensible reasons, strive to protect their existing revenue streams, much more than they do to find new sources of revenue. Neither Dominion nor any other business, including Google, has any reason to promote the use of technology by others that can disrupt their business. And few have the capability to invest in the technology that disrupts someone else’s revenues.

    Yet, it’s the disruptive technologies that spur the breakthroughs that provide economic growth that can spur a higher quality of life.

    But I differ with Groveton over blaming the GA. The problem lies with the good-old-boy/girl system that permeates Virginia. Where is the business leadership pushing for these and other changes? It is fair for Dominion to protect its revenue base. But where are the technoids and the chambers of commerce? Either sitting silently on sidelines or support Dominion, even though they and everyone else might be better off with technology that disrupts the status quo for Dominion.

    Suppose Apple and Nike took Groveton’s idea and pushed it. Where would the Virginia and Fairfax County Chambers of Commerce be? The Northern Virginia Tech Council? Fairfax’s army of consulting businesses? Etc.

    The strong “protect-the-other-members-of-the-club” mentality permeates Virginia, including NoVA. It doesn’t make any difference whether the parties involved are Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or liberals, the result is the same — protect the other members of the club. This is not the fault of some rural legislator.

    That’s why Virginia is is big trouble over the long-term. But for federal spending and regulating, what are our real competitive strengths? If Obama and Congress decided to hold federal spending on contractors flat for four years, what would happen to NoVA and all of Virginia?

    Virginia may have voted for Obama, but it doesn’t really want change.

    TMT

  3. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Ok, so you can collect all kinds of data and put it up on Google. That’s nice. So what good is it to compare other utility companies if you can’t buy trons from them? Wasn’t that supposed to be the purpose of deregulation?

    As for Kaine’s requirement for biodiesel, has he bothered to go to Google recently? They have all kinds of data there that show bio plants biting the dirt right and left. Just select the NEWS tab and type in biodiesel bankruptcy.

    There’s all kinds of data in this information age, just look at your cell phone. I have a ham radio in the house. Actually it’s a program on my computer that connects to some other ham’s radio in a shared arrangement. Imagine, I have no tower or broadcast interference, keeping my nosy neighbors happy. I save energy by not having another radio connected to the grid, and the program tells me what countries I haven’t talked to which cuts down on wasted listening time.

    Other hams have radios with a GPS that connects to a web site letting the whole world know where they are at any minute, as if anyone cared. In fact, you can connect the data to Google Earth and zoom right down on their house, letting you know when they go to the potty.

    And that’s the problem with data. One must consider the motives for those collecting it. Phishing expeditions aren’t always conducted by common thieves, but you still end up paying for the crap.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    I used a candle for a flow sensor to seal up my windows. Low tech, works fine.

    Smart metering is going to be a good example of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency if it works right. One power company executive pointed out that the last thing they wanted wos to hwve the customer save power and wind up paying the same price.

    But, if energy efficiency truly saves the power company money, then they should be able to share the savings with their customers in such a way that both come out ahead.

    Otherwise, this isn’t going to work.

    RH

  5. E M Risse Avatar

    Let us not forget that the primary way to save energy without freezing in the dark is Fuadamental Transformation of settlement patterns:

    Less travel without quality of life loss.

    More effecient use of space and technology and less consumption due to sharing made possible by proximity.

    See the 10 X Rule.

    EMR

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    The government generally makes poor investment decisions and often chooses the wrong technology. Biodiesel may or may not be a good investment. I don’t want Tim Kaine or the GA making those decisions as they would probably be based on a desire to please lobbyists or the politically correct or both.

    Rather, the state should set performance standards that are fair to all technologies and permit the private sector to develop solutions and products that can meet the standards.

    TMT

  7. E M Risse Avatar

    On this specific, TMT is very correct.

    However, it is all a house of cards (Wrong size in the Wrong location) without a rational geographic framework for human settlement.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “Let us not forget that the primary way to save energy without freezing in the dark is Fuadamental Transformation of settlement patterns:

    Less travel without quality of life loss.

    More effecient use of space and technology and less consumption due to sharing made possible by proximity.

    See the 10 X Rule.

    EMR”

    Oh Jeez.

    Efficiency isn’t everything. Let’s not make it a God that drives our lives.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    It may be a house of cards, but it took 200 years to buld it.

    How long will it take to abandon and rebuild?

    RH

  10. cutline: “Seeking a Smaller Footprint”

    Frugality is finally showing up in new home developments.

    Although the number of new single-family houses sold this year will probably be down about 68 percent from the peak of almost 1.3 million sold in 2005, there will still be about 420,000 households buying new homes this year, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

    But recession-chastened house hunters are looking for different things than the boom-era buyers who snapped up homes that grew bigger, fancier and pricier by the month.


    Builders say buyers are judging a home in terms of how comfortable it will be as a living space for the long term, rather than as an investment they can flip for a profit after a couple of years.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012301883.html?hpid=smartliving

    now..my question is….

    is this just another example of the MSM blathering on about nothing in particular?

    Bonus Question:

    Will the next entry in BR be a tome by EMR about smaller footprint homes and Fundamental Transformation?

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    It’s blathering.

    When you can buy a home for 400k, or less, that was 800k last year, or for 200k that was 400k last year, people will decide what is “comfortable”.

    In some places you can buy a house for the price of the land under it.

    Already, teams are buying up tranches of CDO’s for 40 cents on the dollar and dismantling them. Then they go to the homeowners and offer to refinance their mortgage for 50 cents on the dollar.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

    A PEW poll showing what peoples concerns are today.

    Top of the list: Economy and Jobs.

    Bottom of the list: global Warming, along with Environment, Immigration, and trade policy.

    Curiously, terrorism is higher on the list than social security, energy, and health care.

    Sometimes we worry too much about the wrong things, and spend money badly.

    You are more likely to wind up in the hospital from an errant truck tire than you are from a terrorist: in either case you should worry about health care.

    We should stop glamorizing these people as terrorists anyway. Lets agree to just call them criminals.

    RH

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Low oil and energy prices are hurting the renewables businesses. It is hard to find money to invest.

    But that isn’t the worst.

    Lrge oils companies are cutting back on production and new wells. Schlumberger reported a record drop in profits, and a sharper more sudden drop than in previous downturns.

    If and when demand returns, there will be less supply than before.

    What we have here is a train wreck getting ready to happen: $250.00/bbl oil. $5.00 gasoline $17.00 natural gas.

    EMR has said that if we don’t so something soon, we won’t have the resources to do anything.

    I say that is the whole point of the triple bottom line.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    The way the Energy and Commerce proposal reads, utility income won’t suffer even if electricity sales decline thanks to greater efficiency measures. That means ratepayers would, in effect, pay more to get less. It also means Washington would be telling states exactly how to regulate their utilities.

    “The last thing in the world I would think we want to do is do all these great energy efficiency ideas and actually get people consuming less electricity and then not have their costs go down.”

    Congressman Joe Barton

    Like I say, Energy efficiency had better be a win/win/win proposition: Economy, Equality, Environment.

    Otherwise it will fail.

    RH

  15. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Groveton (10:08 a.m.), Excellent post. You’ve just laid out a viable business plan that stands a good chance of attracting venture funding. You need to quite your day job and start a new venture!

  16. I did not totally catch on to what Groveton was saying.

    Electricity use data – belongs to the person who collects it.

    You do not have to wait for the electric company – to do this right now.

    You can install your own smart meter and you can install your own kill-o-watt meters on your major appliances… and if not mistaken.. you can capture all of this data – electronically.

    but then he sort of goes over the edge talking about all manner of outlandish things to measure… like meters in shoes.

    Here’s the context.

    Most Virginian’s use 1/3 more electricity than folks in California, New York and Europe.

    So… some day, we might want to shoot for the stars in conservation – but for right now – a reasonable goal is just to get Virginian’s to conserve as much as other people in other states and nations already are – and no.. RH.. they are not sitting in cold, dark homes.

    Here’s the problem in a nutshell:

    The average incandescent bulb uses 7 times more energy than a CF or LED but people still buy the incandescents because they are so much cheaper for the initial cost – even though – the data is clear – the lifetime cost of that bulb plus the electricity it uses is far more.

    If folks won’t buy CFs or LEDs to save money (much less energy) then all the other ways of also saving money and energy – but require an upfront investment are also not going to be done – by a lot of people.

    …until… what happens?

    .. if one believes the import of this blog … until what?

    …until Government does “something”….

    pick your range of things that government can do.

    they can – spend tax money on convincing businesses to sell “green” stuff and services…

    but why should government have to convince business to sell goods and services in the first place – if there is a demand for them?

    and the government can’t “create” demand by encouraging more companies to sell “green” as the example of the CF verses LED shows.

    however, Government CAN create demand if it taxes energy – and then uses that money to reimburse those who do decide to buy CFs.

    So…government can …convince folks to buy “green” by making energy more expensive and at the same time uses the “profit” from making energy more expensive to give that money back if it is spent on “green”

    Now.. some folks are gonna get their backs up on this idea but before you go into a blathering fit…

    isn’t this what the government does right now with things like seat belts and other safety equipment ..WITHOUT giving rebates.

    In other words, they’ve made cars more expensive – to save on medical and death expenses that result from less safe cars.

    Is this a legitimate role of government?

    How about this.

    Your prescription drug costs are high – in part – because the government of this country has imposed strict standards … that are costly… add huge costs to those drugs.

    Would we rather have cheaper drugs (and food, etc) like they have in 3rd world countries?

    I’m not arguing cost effectiveness here…. on any particular issue…

    I’m only pointing out that the government already involves itself in commerce in ways that it deems are beneficial to people.

    and.. that in other states and nations – this involvement extends to energy use.

    If someone ask me if I want my tax dollars spend to “encourage” green businesses – my answer is that this is a really bad idea – ripe for abuses.

    why not have government, instead, involve itself in standards – like it does in virtually everything else from cars, to drugs, to water supplies… just do that same thing for energy – and then let the free market respond?

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    “Most Virginian’s use 1/3 more electricity than folks in California, New York and Europe.”

    And they produce more GNP than folks in Europe, although you still don’t beleive it.

    Not all of that 1/3 more use is wasted.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “So…government can …convince folks to buy “green” by making energy more expensive and at the same time uses the “profit” from making energy more expensive to give that money back if it is spent on “green” “

    Now you are talking.

    You do see, of course, that this only works if there is an actual net public benefit AND Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.

    Othewise it just means we pay more for less.

    RH

  19. Can you show how California and New York went through this kind of analysis before they de-coupled electricity rates?

    Would you say that the current rates for electricity in Va were determined by the methods you advocate above?

    How would you go about determining Dominion’s request for a rate increase?

    How much of a rate increase would Dominion be granted by using your approach?

    or how about this:

    how much should electricity in Virginia cost – according to the approach you advocate?

    Are we, right now, paying the correct amount, too much or not enough?

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    “How would you go about determining Dominion’s request for a rate increase?”

    As a regulated utility, Dominion is entitled to a fair return on their investments. That would include their investments in efficiency.

    As a customer I would expect to share in the benefits of efficiency: that is I would not expect to pay the same or more for less energy. Especially if I have to make an investment, for example reinsulate my home, and wind up paying MORE so that dominion can get a fair treturn on their investment.

    Or as in Maryland where every customer pays $2.50 per month for PEPCO’s conservation programs.

    RH

  21. re: “You do see, of course, that this only works if there is an actual net public benefit AND Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.

    Othewise it just means we pay more for less.”

    How do you know that the last increase that Dominion got delivered an “actual public benefit” and that you did not end up “paying more for less”?

    How do you know with the next Dominion rate increase that it will be an “actual public benefit” and that you’ll not just being paying even more for less?

    If Dominion said that they wanted a rate increase and they offered you the choice of paying more for the same amount or paying the same you are now for using less – which of the two is a better “public benefit”?

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    At last you see the problem.

    Once I spend my money to reduce my usage, I have no guarantee that I will get a return on my investment.

    But Dominion does. After we make all the sacrifices, Dominion still gets the same bucks. At first I can use less and get the same light, but after I’ve paid for the piglights once, after that I’m jsut in the dark.

    Then, the next it me the rates go up, we have no place left to squeeze, so we eventually freeze in the dark, just like our Euro And CA friends.

    If I’m paying the same amount and using less, plus I have invested in making it possible to use less, then there is NO benefit to me. It is a negative one, in fact.

    Dominion gets the benefit of producing less and caring the same.

    There is no Kaldor Hicks efficiency in that plan.

    Now, here is how you can tell if there is a net social benefit. It is big enought that Dominion is willing to sahre. Dominion buys my light bulbs and Dominion re-insulates my home and Dominion keeps the profit from doing so, and I get to keep my old rate.

    RH

  23. I basically was asking if the current way that Dominion and the State determines rates – currently conforms to what you are advocating?

    You’ll not freeze in the dark because rates go up – and they WILL go up.

    so.. what exactly do you get back in the situation where the rates go up – and they will go up?

    if you have to pay more anyhow – why not pay for measures that would reduce your electricity use – so that your net out of pocket is no worse and perhaps better?

    This is what Kaine and others who are talking about Green “upgrades” are talking about.

    At some point, you get to the point where – if there is going to be – yet another rate increase – that you’ll actually save more money by investing in conservation than if you just reduced your usage by sacrificing.

    this is a fairly typical approach for businesses.

    They’ll ask the question: if we invest in more energy efficient equipment – it will not only pay for itself in a few years but then we’ll actually save money over what we would have had to pay if we had not invested in conservation.

    And when they do this – reduce their electricity use – they don’t suffer a reduction in their productivity at all.

    In fact, because they are paying less for electricity and producing the same amount – they are actually producing more with less – a net INCREASE in productivity.

    right?

    So what the government is proposing is to encourage EARLIER conservation by actually paying you a rebate to do so – which reduces your costs – which means you can get a higher return on investment.

    and in the longer run – this saves everyone else because if enough people upgrade – then the need for a new power plant (and increases in rates to pay for it) goes away or gets deferred.

    isn’t this a win-win for everyone?

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    I basically was asking if the current way that Dominion and the State determines rates – currently conforms to what you are advocating?

    I don’t think we have enough transparency to know. What I suspect is that Dominion – by law – is entitltled to a return on their investments, and I am not.

    You’ll not freeze in the dark because rates go up – and they WILL go up.

    No, I probably won’t, but some people will. (I might need armed guards to protect my firewood.) We see it happen with every cold snap and heat wave. What we don’t see is all the suffering and neaar misses. We don’t see the increases in colds, flu and other illnesses, or decreased productivity from doing your homework with mittens. Saying peopel wiell not freeze in the dark is just a lack of imagination. They will.

    so.. what exactly do you get back in the situation where the rates go up – and they will go up?

    if you have to pay more anyhow – why not pay for measures that would reduce your electricity use – so that your net out of pocket is no worse and perhaps better?

    Depends on how much you have to pay. Solar PV is not yet cost effective for example.

    Depends on whether you have the money to spend. Even compact fluorescents are a stretch for some people, let alone solar PV. Or how can a renter justify reinsulating, for example, even if he pays the electric bill separately?

    You assume that your net out of pocket is no worse than before, when that might not be the case. Besides, you are paying for ANOTHER benefit that everyone enjoys, whether they pay or not: lower CO2 and other emmisisons.

    To the extent that higher electric costs are MANDATED to obtain cleaner air, then the people who enjoy cleaner air should help pay for it. What you have here is a new tax, masquerading as a rate increase, so the politicians can hide behind their no new taxes pledge.

    This is what Kaine and others who are talking about Green “upgrades” are talking about.

    They can talk all they want, the fact is that some upgrades will work and some won’t, and the result will be more waste than necessary. Just as some silt fence is a valuable contribution to reducing runoff but much of it is a “green waste”.

    At some point, you get to the point where – if there is going to be – yet another rate increase – that you’ll actually save more money by investing in conservation than if you just reduced your usage by sacrificing.

    At some point you will have made all you rinvestments in efficiency that work, and you will have no choice but to sacrifice. For those on the “bottom of the ziggurat” that means freezing in the dark.

    Eventually, prices will go up enough to justify more investments in efficiency – if you have the money.

    this is a fairly typical approach for businesses.

    The other typical approach for business is to go out of business. It isn’t such a hot option when it is your life and childrens health we are talking about.

    They’ll ask the question: if we invest in more energy efficient equipment – it will not only pay for itself in a few years but then we’ll actually save money over what we would have had to pay if we had not invested in conservation.

    Up until they have made all the rational investments, and if they have the money, and if they don’t have something better to spend it on. Burlington Coat factory might decide they will make more money selling coats and sweaters than they would investing in more efficiency for their stores. If that is the case, guess which investment they will choose?

    And when they do this – reduce their electricity use – they don’t suffer a reduction in their productivity at all.

    Wrong. In the example above they would have suffered a reduction in financial productivity.

    In fact, because they are paying less for electricity and producing the same amount – they are actually producing more with less – a net INCREASE in productivity.

    right?

    No. You might be right (in some cases) and might not be. They may have saved money and been ahead but not as much they had just sold more coats. (At least under this hypothetical model.) More energy efficiency would have been a loss in comparison.

    So what the government is proposing is to encourage EARLIER conservation by actually paying you a rebate to do so – which reduces your costs – which means you can get a higher return on investment.

    Where is the rebate coming from? How is the government paying me?

    Conservation will pay for itself when it pays for itself, encouraging it too early is wasteful, in fact. However, we do need to realize and act on major problems before they become a crisis or reach a tipping point. Acting affter the passenger pigeons are extinct is too late.

    But then, having decided to act, you have to decide how many passenger pigeons, or whales, or people you can afford to protect.

    and in the longer run – this saves everyone else because if enough people upgrade – then the need for a new power plant (and increases in rates to pay for it) goes away or gets deferred.

    isn’t this a win-win for everyone?

    First of all, it’s a nice idea, but it might not (probably won’t) work out that way. there are too many Indaians and Chinese and Africans and South Americans.

    It might not save everyone else, or anyone else. Even so it isn’t a win win for everyone because some will pay and some won’t. Either we have a real disaster in which case everyone pays and suffers, or else we have a real payment plan, in nwhich everyone pays – and suffers.

    You are NOT going to get a global 80% reduction in CO2 painlessly. In fact, just yesterday I was watching a specialon global warming in which the plotted various trends. one trend was how much sooner we could halt global warming if the economy tanks.

    The special didn’t point out how many lives that might cost.

    We may have reached a point like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

    “I can’t jump, I’ll die”

    “If you don’t jump those guys are gonna kill you.”

    “I still can’t jump.”

    “Why not?”

    “I can’t swim.”

    “You idiot, the fall will probably kill you.”

    “Oh S—“

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    http://policy.miis.edu/docs/IEP/books/Scorse_What_Environmentalists_Need_to_Know_entire.pdf

    This site offers a copy of a freely downloadable book.

    “What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics” by Jason Scorse.

    I have not read all of it yet, but here is one relevant quote:

    “Many critics of economics claim that it is the commoditization of the environment and living things that are the root causes of environmental roblems; that it is a world that assigns property rights to the world’s environmental heritage and
    assigns them price tags, which is the greatest threat to a more livable future.

    A careful examination, however, of the areas where we see some of the greatest environmental threats leads to the exact opposite conclusion…… “

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    And after you finish the book you might read:

    How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet?
    The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change

    By

    Eric Pooley

    At

    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d49_pooley.pdf

    In the conclusion he points out that “… clean energy will be a boon—once alternative-energy technologies become widely available and costs come down for wind, solar, and other clean fuels. In the meantime, however, energy prices are likely to rise in a carbon-constrained world.”

    ……

    “But it’s worth keep-ing in mind that for political reasons, the opponents of change will exaggerate the costs of action while the proponents of change minimize those costs.”

    And it is this last part that has been my consistent point here At BRB. Even if you believe that clean energy will eventually be a boon, there is no reason to sugarcoat what will happen in the meantime. It is wrong and misleading to do do, just as much as it is wrong and misleading to paint an overly wrought gloom and doom scenario.

    And it is wrong to paint false pictures in order to sell your “vision”. there is no reason to sell renewables as a job creation strategy – because it probably isn’t true.

    “The path to a low-carbon economy is the higher-growth path,” says Nathaniel Keo-hane of EDF. “But I don’t think we’re going to have a free lunch. I don’t think we need to sell cap and trade as a jobs-stimulus package. Sure, it will create jobs, but will it create more jobs than business as usual over the next five years? Probably not. My best estimate of the net effect is zero……”

    And it just as likely isn’t true that a cap and trade bill willl cost 76,000 people in Missouri their jobs either. For one thing, if that happens the bill will be modified.

    So, lets stop blowing sweetness and light and stop blowing the cataclysm blues, and try to find something that will work for most of us without killing all of us.

    RH

  27. so…. you admit.. that the criteria that has been, is, and will be used to determine if Dominion can raise their rates ….

    …is not the criteria that you are advocating – “…actual net public benefit AND Kaldor-Hicks efficiency”?

    and you admit that Dominion has had rate increases in the past and will likely have rate increases in the future – perhaps this year even?

    and if that happens, then you’ll have to pay more for electricity – OR use less electricity – right?

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    Exactly. In other words higher rates will induce some additional efficiencies, but they will also be a drag on the economy.

    Particularly the economy of poor people.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    To see what I consider to be a realistic assessment of renewable energy in the united states, take a look at todays article “Big Chunks”

    at

    http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/

    It is pretty depressing.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    “Scientists expect 1,000 years of droughts and rising sea levels even with emissions cuts.”

    WAPO

    What????

    I said, “Scientists expect 1,000 years of droughts and rising sea levels even with emissions cuts.”

    “Whew, for a minute I thought you said 10,000 years of drought.”

    RH

Leave a Reply