Place Matters in Cap-and-Trade Compliance Costs, Does it Drive Politics?
There’s a lot of variation from place-to-place in terms of carbon emissions. Some places are sprawling, others are dense. Some places are cold, requiring a lot of heating. Some places have coal-fired electricity, others rely much more on cleaner sources. That’s the upshot of this useful rundown of place-by-place variation in costs to households of clean energy legislation done by Jonathan Rothwell and Mark Munro at Brookings:
What do we make of these results? The first thing to say is: The household costs of cap-and-trade compliance vary quite a lot, and depend quite a bit on what metro you live in. Ranging above and below the average $160 cost to a household nationally in 2020, the average metro figures range from a high of $277 per household in Lexington, KY to a low of just $96 in Los Angeles. Low costs are registered all across the West’s metros and in Northeastern metros like New York, Boston, and Rochester. Much higher costs will be borne by households in metros all across the upper South and Ohio Valley—places like Cincinnati, and Indianapolis, and Nashville. So once again, as we keep saying: Place matters.
This is followed, however, by some back-of-the-envelop political analysis that I don’t think is correct:
Given these realities, you can see why the chief sponsors of climate legislation hail from California (Rep. Henry Waxman, Sen. Barbara Boxer) and Massachusetts (Rep. Edward Markey, Sen. John Kerry) while the leading opponents, like Rep. John Boehner, represent Ohio or the South. But you might also think that regions that want to do well for their citizens might want to manage growth a little better, provide transportation options, and think about cleaning up their energy sourcing. Look at the map, after all: Place matters!
I think it’s hard to leap to this conclusion. The Northeast and California are aligned on a wide array of political topics—gay rights, abortion, labor law—that have absolutely nothing to do with carbon emissions. In particular, I began to have serious doubts about this analysis when I went to this table and discovered that DC is one of the highest-cost metro areas and Boise is one of the lowest-cost ones. I made a table showing eight above average and eight below average metros, with selections made with an eye to problematizing this conjecture about the politics of the climate bill:
DC strikes me as a particularly good test case for this hypothesis. The DC area is generally quite left-wing. But apparently would feature high compliance costs with a cap-and-trade bill. So are Donna Edwards, Chris Van Hollen, and Jim Moran among the House Democrats who made the most trouble for Waxman and Ed Markey? Well, no, they’re not. Nor is Boise a hotbed of support for climate change legislation nor Austin a hotbed of opposition.
My counter-hypothesis is that, the primary driver of the politics of climate change is general ideological factors, followed by the interests of energy producers rather than consumers. The DC area relies on a lot of coal power, but it doesn’t involve a lot of coal-related employment.
33 Responses to “Place Matters in Cap-and-Trade Compliance Costs, Does it Drive Politics?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Way off subject, but this is important. The Republicans have a rough sketch of a half baked idea on health care. They want to force me into a “high risk” pool. These have been tried before and always failed, leaving those in it without any coverage. So let’s call them what they are: Death Pools. This phrase needs to get out immediately before the Republican even release the plan. Death Pools. It’s high time we use scary rhetoric against their plan. And the rhetoric also has the benefit of actually being true. Death Pools.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
That table should really be titled “Green Boise, Dirty NoVa and MD,” since the District itself has by far the lowest compliance cost in the US at $-91 (that’s minus $91, or (91), however you want to write it…which makes the extremely high regional cost even more of an eyebrow-raiser.
Of course, DC has no voting member in the House, so when it comes to getting the legislation passed, it doesn’t really matter if it costs us nothing or four times the national average.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Isn’t the subject a global warming remission more complicated than just reducing CO2 emissions?
I really think our national leadership should enforce some discipline and rigor in this debate. Including giving Jim Inhofe a smack across the chops in public when he questions global warming. It should be UNACCEPTABLE for a fucking SENATOR to lie to the AMerican public about an issue this serious.
IT is a fucking FACT that the Arctic ice cap has greatly melted — demand that Inhofe show one fucking time in the last 500 years when the Northwest Passage north of Canada was open the way it is now.
It is a fucking FACT that the snowmass on our mountains — the Alps, Kilimanjaro,etc is at historic lows.
So why doesn’t anyone take this fucking cocksucker on? GO to his own state and tell his constituents that THEY are the ones who will be fucked by Inhofe’s irresponsibility.
On the other hand, Inhofe is correct to note that there is dissension among some scientific experts re the importance of CO2 emissions along in causing global warming. Roger A. Pielke’s views that there are other human factors than CO2 causing global warming should be addressed and accounted for in a remediation program, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#On_climate_change
Where is disagreement among the experts , those disagreements should be aired and resolved. But only if the critics are REAL experts — not experts in unrelated fields who think retirement justifies them shooting off their mouths about things that they have not really studied.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Matt,
This is right–but the interesting thing is what happens by income quintile. The bottom line is that carbon cost differential is larger by income than by geography. PERI buries that lede a bit in this report: http://bit.ly/Ahg5U
The upshot is that if you have a policy that protects the lowest incomes & gives most permits away–the middle class foots the bill.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
As for the climate issue, I’ll supposedly have to pay a little above average being in the Denver area. Although I’ll really pay far less because I use far less energy. I turn on my air conditioning for a few hours every year just to see if it still works. I keep my house at 65 in the winter, and my house is well insulated. You want to avoid these expenses? Then use less. It’s not so hard. You probably own some sweaters anyway, so wear them in the winter. In the summer, learn to take the heat, or use a fan. People did that for thousands of years before air conditioning was invented. Yes, your pristine life might get a little disrupted, but maybe you’d learn a little about what the outside world is doing. As it is now, we have this freaky idea that a house should be 75 in the winter and 65 in the summer. That’s just stupid. Do the reverse, and you save a lot of energy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
fostert – part of living in an advanced society is not having to wear a hairshirt. As I’ve said before, the American public will not get on this bandwagon by being told that they have to downshift. If that’s your pitch, prepare to lose.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“fostert – part of living in an advanced society is not having to wear a hairshirt.”
I’m not asking for a hairshirt, I’m simply asking for sanity. How about keeping the same temperature all year long? You insist that the temperature be higher in the winter than in the summer. Why not just let it go the other way? If 65 degrees is fine in the summer, than why is it too cold in the winter? If 75 is okay in the winter, then why is it too hot in the summer? If you want 68 degrees all year round, then fine, I can live with that. But this insistence that the indoor temperature be higher in the winter than summer is just stupid and really wasteful. I can understand if your religion insists that you waste energy, but I know of only one that says that. There is only one religion that really insists on this, and it’s Republicanism. You obviously subscribe to it, and will go against sanity because of it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
And really Mr Robinson, why is the temperature you want to be in dependent on which month it is? Shouldn’t “comfortable” be the same all year round?
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
And consider this Mr Robinson, if it’s July and I fooled you into thinking it’s really December, why would you change the thermostat?
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Normally, we keep the house between 70 and 72 all year, which we find comfortable. 65 in the winter would be pretty unbearable. I’d manage, but it would make my wife miserable, and it would also make my daughter miserable. Likewise, going with something like 75 in the summer would be uncomfortable as well.
I don’t really care about the energy use; I care about not having a miserable family. Telling people “just put on a sweater” is a losing political program – it’s one of the many reasons Carter lost in 1980.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
And here’s the craziest thing of all. When you’re in Thailand you’ll notice an interesting thing: the temples are as cool as the hotels. It takes massive amounts of energy to keep that hotel cool, yet the temple has no air conditioning at all. They just built it right to keep it cool. And it was built 500 years ago. We aren’t talking about hairshirts or newfangled technology. Just build a building like they did 500 years ago and it’s fine. But somehow we think that 68 degrees is wrong if it’s done naturally, but right if it uses energy to get there. That’s fucking stupid. This was all done 500 years ago, we don’t have to do anything but just build houses they way we used to. But we don’t, and that’s just crazy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
What I’m taking away from this is (1) what little effect the proposed legislation will have on gas prices and (2) how home energy costs dwarf those of transportation. Boise is mostly green because a lot of the electric power for the region is from hydroelectric generation (and some geothermal). Boise, and the rest of the West, is all car commuting though. This isn’t a great argument for Boise (or other cities in the West) though, because this variety of green generation is already maxed out.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Well that’s good Mr Robertson, but the rest of the country doesn’t do that. Just having a constant temperature all year round for the rest of the country would be a good idea, and I think we can actually agree on that. But when I lived in Texas, I’d take a sweater to work in the summer because the air conditioning was kept at 62. I’d wear short sleeves in the winter because the heat was kept at 78. Can you possibly admit that that’s really stupid? And can you recognize that that’s really what most people do?
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
there’s also an Energy Information Administration analysis of energy cost and other economic impacts of Waxman-Markey
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
As for me, 65 in the winter, 80 in the summer (with night being 60 anyway). I don’t ask other people to do this, but at least keep it even at some temperature.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I don’t really like varying temps, so I agree on that. What I find amusing is the notion of a grand govt run fix for this – because my wife, working for one of the largest govt agencies, has to bring sweaters in during the summer (and often wear very light shirts during the winter) because of the huge temp swings in the buildings. And these aren’t old buildings, either.
As to “building right” – there’s only so much of that you can do in areas (like central Maryland) that have high humidity in the summer months.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
So, cap & trade would be popular in left-leaning regions with moderate climates in winter/summer. That only excludes roughly 90% of the population. Another way of saying there’s no way in hell this or a carbon tax will ever pass.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“As to “building right” – there’s only so much of that you can do in areas (like central Maryland) that have high humidity in the summer months.”
Umm, Bangkok is the hottest city in the world and one of the most humid. Yet 500 years ago, they figured out how to keep a building cool. If you can do it in Bangkok, you can surely do it in Maryland. I’ve been to both, and I can assure you that Mayland is quite mild compared to Bangkok. And look, you can make ice in a hot desert with evaporative cooling. 100 degrees out, and you can use the sun to make ice only using water to do it. That trick is about 3,000 years old. Heating is a different story, you really need energy for that.
And yes, your wife’s workplace isn’t old. If it were, it’s temperature would probably be more stable. And the building would use less energy. We have specifically designed modern architecture to use more energy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
100 degrees out, and you can use the sun to make ice only using water to do it.”
Don’t believe me? Ask an Iraq War veteran how he’d chill beers when he’s off base. They know the trick. The trick comes from India, by the way. And if you’ve ever been to Chennai, you’d know why they figured that one out.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Ok, let me try that again: you can’t build something many Americans will want to live in that stays cool enough in a Maryland summer without air conditioning.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
MattY doesn’t want to point this out, but that’s the reason a carbon tax or any meaningful form of cap & trade is doomed. I believe it was the CEO of Duke Energy last spring who pointed out that these would amount to a huge transfer of wealth from states in the Midwest and South that have little or no potential for renewables generation to states in the West and along the coasts that do.
Republicans will oppose it on ideological grounds, and Democrats will lose support of their own in the states that stand to be drained of wealth.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“Ok, let me try that again: you can’t build something many Americans will want to live in that stays cool enough in a Maryland summer without air conditioning.”
Well, you’re right there. Americans like low ceilings and thin walls. If they could put up with more space above and better soundproofing, it would be fine. Oh, and roofs that last longer. But Americans like to replace their roofs every fifteen years.
And I’m not joking, the secrets to the Thai temples are thick masonry walls, high ceilings, and a double tile roof. And by double roof, I mean that there’s a roof built on top of the roof with a gap in between to create convective flow. It’s obviously more expensive to build that way, but air conditioning costs nothing. And the house will last a thousand years with relatively minimal maintenance. But the roofs are steep, so replacing those tiles will be tricky. Resale value is pretty damn good, though.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“and Democrats will lose support of their own in the states that stand to be drained of wealth.”
Huh? The Midwest is somewhat competitive but mostly Republican, and the South is a dominant Republican region. How are Democrats going to be hurt by hurting those regions? As for the renewable potential, the South has the best potential for efficient housing. Not much need to heat there and air conditioning can be done with no applied energy. Maybe they can’t generate much energy, but they could easily use a lot less. And where’s the best land-based wind capacity? Texas. Yes, what few Democrats still exist in the South will lose their election, but they’re going to lose anyway. I really don’t see much downside except for maybe losing a few seats in the Midwest. As for who gets hurt, the South already is heavily subsidized by the rest of the country, so fuck ‘em. It’s time they pulled their own weight. And in the Midwest, we can just give them another farm bill. We do that anyway.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
fostert – so, let me get this straight: you want to large stone buildings for people to live in? Let’s go factor in the energy used to quarry, transport, and cut. And then ponder how many people in Thailand actually live in anything that looks like that. Answer: Not many. Just as few people live in the Washington Monument, few people live inside temples.
For instance, in this image, I don’t see many large stone buildings. Lots of typical Western style ones though. That’s Bangkok, btw.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
fostert – You might want to reconsider that “eff ‘em” theory – because suburban voters all across the northeast and midwest will be hurt incredibly by cap and trade. The cost of heating a home through a typical winter will cause enormous pain.
Very progressive of you to just tell those people to eat cake though.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Likewise, going with something like 75 in the summer would be uncomfortable as well.
Christ, what a baby.
Back on the topic of the main post, one of the Democrats who is opposing climate change legislation is Walt Minnick, who represents Boise (having beaten Bill “That idiot is just an absolute idiot” Sali). Because he represents a “conservative district, where many voters are skeptical whether human activity is changing the world’s climate.”
In other words, Matt is right — the driving force is how wingnutty the area is, not how high its compliance costs would be.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
fostert Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“and Democrats will lose support of their own in the states that stand to be drained of wealth.”
Huh? The Midwest is somewhat competitive but mostly Republican, and the South is a dominant Republican region. How are Democrats going to be hurt by hurting those regions? As for the renewable potential, the South has the best potential for efficient housing. Not much need to heat there and air conditioning can be done with no applied energy. Maybe they can’t generate much energy, but they could easily use a lot less. And where’s the best land-based wind capacity? Texas. Yes, what few Democrats still exist in the South will lose their election, but they’re going to lose anyway. I really don’t see much downside except for maybe losing a few seats in the Midwest. As for who gets hurt, the South already is heavily subsidized by the rest of the country, so fuck ‘em. It’s time they pulled their own weight. And in the Midwest, we can just give them another farm bill. We do that anyway.
===================================================
What planet do you live on? Well, you said you were in Colorado, so I’m guessing Boulder.
Pryor – D Arkansas
Lincoln – D Arkansas
Bayh – D Indiana
Landrieu – D Louisiana
Nelson – D Nebraska
Rockefeller – D W Virginia
Byrd – D W Virginia
Warner – D Virginia
Webb – D Virginia
Brown- D Ohio
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“I don’t see many large stone buildings. Lots of typical Western style ones though. That’s Bangkok, btw.”
And you are right about that. The fad in Thailand is to live in American style houses with air conditioning. That’s just what’s popular these days. And it’s all made possible by cheap gas from Burma. And that gas is cheap because the pipeline was built with slave labor by Unocal. I never said the Thai were sensible these days, I just talked about what would be sensible and noted that it has been done before by the Thai (when they were sensible). As for how many people live in temples, well, quite a lot. Of the current population, about 30 million have lived in a temple for at least a year. All males in Thailand are monks for at least a year. You can’t have a Buddhist wedding if you were never a monk. And that goes for the King Himself. One of the greatest pictures ever taken of Him was His Majesty siting in the lotus position in monk’s saffrons and Ray-ban sunglasses. And yes, the energy it takes to build a stone house is much higher, but it lasts a thousand years. How much energy does it take to build twenty houses that last fifty years? If you think long term, it makes a lot of sense. Not that anyone would ever think beyond the next quarter’s report. Certainly not here. And yes, people will be hurt by cap and trade if they don’t make their houses more efficient. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? But hell, I don’t really care about the planet. I’ll be leaving this planet within this decade and I have no children. It makes no difference to me if the entire human population dies. I’ll be dead anyway. The question is do you care about your children? I’d hope so, but I see no evidence of it. I’d like to help the next generation, but if nobody’s with me, oh well, it’s your loss not mine. As for the South, I think I’ve made it clear now and in the past that I don’t like them and consider the an enemy. I’ve often put forth the view that Lincoln should have just let them secede. The rest of us would surely be better off without their lazy asses. They go against everything I believe in, and I’m really tired of having to subsidize them. So, yeah, fuck ‘em. And if that’s not progressive, I don’t give a shit. I always hated labels, I’ve never been part of any movement, I switch parties based on who has the best primary, and my only concern is making this country better. And I will vote Republican if they have the better candidate. I have only one rule in politics: I always vote for the Libertarian candidate in the Sheriff’s election.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Pryor – D Arkansas – actually a Moderate Democrat
Lincoln – D Arkansas- Republican
Bayh – D Indiana – Moderate Republican
Landrieu – D Louisiana – Republican
Nelson – D Nebraska – Republican
Rockefeller – D W Virginia – Real Democrat
Byrd – D W Virginia – used to be a racist, but a Democrat
Warner – D Virginia – Real Democrat
Webb – D Virginia – Moderate Democrat, but I like him a lot.
Brown- D Ohio – Don’t know him at all, so I can’t say.
So there’s four and a half Senate Democrats in the whole region, and Byrd can’t last much longer and will be replaced by a Republican. In six years, those Democrats that aren’t already Republicans will be replaced by Republicans. Except for Rockefeller, he brings home the bacon, and that’s what matters in West Virginia. So long term, there’s one and a half Democrats in that entire region. And we should sacrifice the planet for them? Okay, I’ll be dead anyway, so good luck to you.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Umm…LA’s a bit of a sprawling mess, and it’s costs are the lowest on your chart.
To me this suggests that you’re probably right in highlighting energy producers. I’ve seen more than a bit of commentary on this topic, including from bloggers who’ve played with the online Carbon Footprint Calculators and found there wasn’t much for a resident of a coal-dependent state to do other than move somewhere else.
Too bad Clean Coal isn’t anything more than astroturf nonsense.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:14 am
“For instance, in this image,”
You know, I didn’t even look at the picture until now. I know what Bangkok looks like, I’ve been to it like fifteen times, but I can’t really remember for sure. Bangkok is sometimes a blur. But what a lame shot (not your fault, I know). I wish I knew how to link to my own pictures. I have some really cool shots of Bangkok. And you could see what small residential houses look like. Old ones are masonry and sort of traditional, but the new ones are wood and American style. Temples are always traditional, even if they were built last year. And the concept of buildings lasting a thousand years is true, but not in Bangkok. Bagnkok isn’t that old. The original capital was Ayutthaya, but the Burmese eventually kicked the Thai out of that one. So they built a new one called Krung Thep, which is the real name of Bangkok. Well, the shortened version of the real name. The proper name is like a paragraph long and it’s notable for the lack of one word: Bangkok. Bangkok was the name of a popular market that Europeans loved, so they always referred to the entire city by that name. And it stuck for everyone but the Thai.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:49 am
#26 – right, I should try to explain to my wife and daughter that they should deal with higher temps in the house so that northeastern liberals can feel better about themselves. That’ll work.
I think I’ll just leave the thermostat where it is, thanks.
And on the topic itself, urban and suburban dwellers cross the midwest and northeast would end up paying huge costs every winter. If anything like the House bill becomes law, the party that passed it will end up wandering in the wilderness for a few years as voters punish it.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:20 am
What a dumb comments thread.
Back on topic, Duke Energy in Cincinnati strongly supports Waxman-Markey, mainly because they want subsidies to clean up their plants. That’s great, because Cincinnati is horribly smoggy because of the coal plants (and those upriver in Pittsburgh). However, we’ll be hit pretty hard with rising costs until Duke replaces those plants.
Nevertheless, Steve Driehaus voted for Waxman-Markey, mainly because of Duke’s support; he’s now being hit pretty hard for it.
Similarly, Sherrod Brown is the liberal dealmaker on Boxer-Kerry, because Ohio’s manufacturing is going to take a big hit, too. Brown’s probably the 5th most liberal senator, but there’s a big consideration for the corporate base.
Neither one seems to have given a ton of consideration to household costs, despite the fact that they’re both giant populists. So, MY’s point that household costs won’t enter into the debate seems correct.
Also, households are going to get tax credits, right? So fuck it anyway. Winterize your house with the tax credits, and lower your monthly bills. Everybody wins!