Comments on: The High Cost of Emissions Reduction Symbolism http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4403 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Hall Of Record http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4403&cpage=1#comment-9798 Hall Of Record Fri, 02 May 2008 19:19:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4403#comment-9798 The obvious is being missed here: Congress is not sensitive to costs. The marketplace has no influence on Congress. What Congress wants, it mandates. If it wants a symbolic gesture for a flawed purpose, cost is irrelevant. The obvious is being missed here: Congress is not sensitive to costs. The marketplace has no influence on Congress. What Congress wants, it mandates. If it wants a symbolic gesture for a flawed purpose, cost is irrelevant.

]]> By: Tom Fiddaman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4403&cpage=1#comment-9797 Tom Fiddaman Thu, 01 May 2008 23:30:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4403#comment-9797 Yet another argument for a uniform CO2eq price throughout the economy. I notice that they assume equal coal and gas boiler efficiency (should be untrue) and omit costs of fuel handling and air quality benefits, all of which might favor the switch. Still, the cost is unlikely to fall far enough to make sense. If they insist on symbolism, they should start cogenerating electricity and work on total system efficiency. Yet another argument for a uniform CO2eq price throughout the economy.

I notice that they assume equal coal and gas boiler efficiency (should be untrue) and omit costs of fuel handling and air quality benefits, all of which might favor the switch. Still, the cost is unlikely to fall far enough to make sense.

If they insist on symbolism, they should start cogenerating electricity and work on total system efficiency.

]]>