The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Clean Energy Subsidies Fall Short Without Putting Proper Price on Carbon
Apart from basic research, most subsidies directed towards clean energy without a policy that charges for carbon dioxide emissions will produce little lasting environmental benefit, constituting de-facto “industrial policy,” according to a new paper by three Brookings scholars. In fact, with a reasonable price on carbon, most such subsidies are unnecessary, they conclude.
Policy Director of the Brookings Center on Climate and Energy Economics Adele Morris, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies Pietro Nivola and Senior Fellow Emeritus Charles Schultze, who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Carter and Director of the Budget under President Johnson, find little justification for government favoritism of one sector of the economy over others, as is current U.S. policy concerning “green” energy. Instead, they argue for a carbon tax as the most effective climate policy and one that would also spur energy innovation.
In Clean Energy: Revisiting the Challenges of Industrial Policy, the authors compare past industrial policy to today’s clean energy policy. They also carefully examine the usual arguments used in favor of federal subsidies for green energy: energy independence, competing with foreign countries, environmental benefits and job creation/amelioration of unemployment. They find that on each criterion, the current policy fails.
Looking at the last time the U.S. attempted so-called “industrial policy” in the 1970s and 1980s (when Japan was considered to be the top U.S. competitor), they note that environmental projects in the Carter administration through to the Bush hydrogen car expended taxpayer dollars while delivering few commercially viable products. Looking at the energy independence argument, they point out that the only fuel that the U.S. imports is oil and that 90 percent of the U.S. supply comes from outside the Middle East and Venezuela; oil is part of a global market; and that oil use is confined to the transportation sector and that no gasoline is produced by solar, wind or geothermal.
Turning to the foreign competition and jobs argument, the authors note that there is a churn in employment in the U.S. and that international trade tends to reallocate rather than add or subtract overall jobs in the economy. Furthermore, “pushing home-grown technologies at taxpayers’ expense offers no guarantee that the eventual products ultimately won’t be manufactured somewhere else,” they write. “The case for consigning clean-energy development to domestic manufacturers, many of which may be high-cost producers, can disappoint on environmental grounds as well. Minimizing the cost of abatement is central to achieving environmental goals. If other countries develop lower-cost clean energy, more of it will be adopted, here and abroad. Indeed, from the standpoint of environmental quality, the willingness of other nations heavily to subsidize their clean-tech industries, thereby lowering the costs of clean energy, may ultimately enhance, not lower, U.S. welfare.”
They then examine how stimulus spending on energy projects compares to other forms of fiscal stimulus, finding that the Department of Energy’s $32 billion from the ARRA included substantial sums for research, which given its long time-horizon is not a form of stimulus that’s typically timely, temporary, or targeted, hence that could create and/or save jobs in the near term. They also note that almost half of the nearly $40 billion in loan guarantees in the stimulus package went to solar power and electric vehicles–two sectors with some of the highest costs of carbon abatement and the lowest projected market shares.
“The functional equivalent of an industrial policy, explicit or de facto, is unlikely to spur an efficient or large-scale conversion of the U.S. economy toward cleaner energy,” they conclude. Instead, they advocate for policies that can help meet the challenge of climate change–putting an effective price on carbon.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- World Leaders Urged to 'Act Now' to Save Biodiversity - EcoWatch ›
- Why Biodiversity Loss Hurts Humans as Much as Climate Change ... ›
A third cougar has been sighted wandering through a residential neighborhood in the Chilean capital of Santiago as millions of the city's residents are under lockdown measures in response to the coronavirus outbreak.
An area in Louisiana whose predominantly black and brown residents are hard-hit by health problems from industry overdevelopment is experiencing one of the highest death rates from coronavirus of any county in the United States.
- Plastics Plant Will Bulldoze Over Black History in 'Cancer Alley ... ›
- 'Cancer Alley' Residents Sue DuPont - EcoWatch ›
A central player in the fight against the novel coronavirus is our immune system. It protects us against the invader and can even be helpful for its therapy. But sometimes it can turn against us.
How does our immune system react to the coronavirus?<p>The coronavirus is — like any other virus — not much more than a shell around genetic material and a few proteins. To replicate, it needs a host in the form of a living cell. Once infected, this cell does what the virus commands it to do: copy information, assemble it, release it.</p><p>But this does not go unnoticed. Within a few minutes, the body's immune defense system intervenes with its innate response: Granulocytes, scavenger cells and killer cells from the blood and lymphatic system stream in to fight the virus. They are supported by numerous plasma proteins that either act as messengers or help to destroy the virus.</p><p>For many viruses and bacteria, this initial activity of the immune system is already sufficient to fight an intruder. It often happens very quickly and efficiently. We often notice only small signs that the system is working: We have a cold, a fever. </p>
Is there an immunity? How long does it last?<p>The good news is that it is very likely there is an immunity. This is suggested by the proximity to other viruses, epidemiological data and animal experiments. Researchers <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1" target="_blank">infected four rhesus monkeys,</a> a species close to humans, with SARS-CoV-2. The monkeys showed symptoms of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, developed neutralizing antibodies and recovered after a few days. When the recovered animals were reinfected with the virus, they no longer developed any symptoms: They were immune. </p><p>The bad news: It is not (yet) known how long the immunity will last. It depends on whether a patient has successfully developed neutralizing antibodies. Achim Hörauf estimates that the immunity should last at least one year. Within this year, every new contact with the virus acts as a kind of booster vaccination, which in turn might prolong the immunity.</p><p>"The virus is so new that nobody has a reasonable immune response," says the immunologist. He believes that lifelong immunity is unlikely. This "privilege" is reserved for viruses that remain in the body for a long time and give our immune system a virtually permanent opportunity to get to know it. Since the coronavirus is an RNA (and not a DNA) virus, it cannot permanently settle in the body, says Hörauf.</p><p>The Heidelberg immunologist <a href="https://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/immunologie/immunologie" target="_blank">Stefan Meuer</a> predicts that the novel coronavirus will also mutate like all viruses. He assumes that this could be the case in 10 to 15 years: "At some point, the acquired immunity will no longer be of any use to us because then another coronavirus will return, against which the protection that has now been formed will not help us because the virus has changed in such a way that the antibodies are no longer responsible. And then no vaccination will help either."</p>
How can we take advantage of the antibody response of the immune system?<p>Researchers are already collecting plasma from people who have successfully survived an infection with SARS-CoV-2 and are using it to treat a limited number of patients suffering from COVID-19. The underlying principle: <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-drugs-can-antibodies-from-survivors-help/a-52806428" target="_blank">passive immunization.</a> The studies carried out to date have shown positive results, but they have usually been carried out on only a few people.</p><p>At best, passive immunization is used only when the patient's own immune system has already started to work against the virus, says Achim Hörauf: "The longer you can leave the patients alone with the infection before you protect them with passive immunization, the better." Only through active immunization can one be protected in the long term. At the same time, it is difficult to recognize the right point in time.</p><p>PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests are currently used to find out whether a person is infected with the coronavirus. With the help of PCR, it is not possible to tell whether or not there is reproducible viral RNA; it is just a proof of whether the virus is still present, dead or alive. A PCR test cannot tell us whether our immune system has already intervened, i.e. whether we have had contact with the virus in the past, have formed antibodies and are now protected. Researchers are therefore working on tests that check our blood for the presence of antibodies. They are already in use in Singapore, for example, and are nearing completion in the USA. With the help of these tests, it would finally be possible to gain an overview <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/corona-confusion-how-to-make-sense-of-the-numbers-and-terminology/a-52825433" target="_blank">of the unclear case numbers.</a> In addition, people who have developed antibodies against the virus could be used at the forefront of health care, for example. An "immunity passport" is even under discussion.</p>
Is it possible to become infected and/or ill several times with the coronavirus?<p>"According to all we know, it is not possible with the same pathogen," says Achim Hörauf. It is possible to become infected with other coronaviruses or viruses from the SARS or MERS group if their spike proteins look different. "As far as the current epidemic is concerned, it can be assumed that people who have been through COVID-19 will not become ill from it for the time being and will not transmit the virus any further," he says.</p>
How long before you're no longer contagious?<p>A study <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x" target="_blank">carried out on the first coronavirus patients in Germany</a> showed that no viruses that are capable of replication can be found from day eight after the onset of symptoms, even though PCR can still detect up to 100,000 gene copies per sample. This could change the current quarantine recommendations in the future.</p><p>According to the Robert Koch Institute, patients can currently be discharged from hospital if they show two negative PCR samples from the throat within 24 hours. If they have had a severe case of the disease, they should remain in domestic isolation for another two weeks. For each discharge, whether from hospital or home isolation, they should have been symptom-free for at least 48 hours.</p>
Why do people react differently to the virus?<p>While some people get off with a mild cold, others are put on ventilators or even die of SARS-Cov-2. Especially people with <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-who-is-particularly-at-risk-and-why/a-52710881" target="_blank">pre-existing conditions</a> and older people seem to be worst-affected by the virus. Why? This is the hottest question at the moment.</p><p>It will still take a very, very long time to understand the mechanistic, biological basis for why some people are so much more severely affected than others, virologist Angela Rasmussen told <em>The Scientist</em>. "The virus is important, but the host response is at least as important, if not more important," her colleague Stanley Perlman told the magazine.</p><p>Stefan Meuer sees a fundamental survival principle of nature in the different equipment and activity of our immune systems: "If we were all the same, one and the same virus could wipe out the entire human species at once. Due to the genetic range, it is quite normal that some people die from a viral disease while others do not even notice it. "</p><p>Achim Hörauf also suspects immunological variants that could be genetically determined. Since interstitial pneumonia is observed with the coronavirus, the focus is probably on an overreaction of the immune system. However, it is also possible that each person affected may have been loaded with a different dose of the virus, which in turn leads to different outcomes. And finally, it makes a difference how robust the body and lungs are: Competitive athletes simply have more lung volume than long-time smokers. </p>
- 9 Ways to Boost Your Immune System - EcoWatch ›
- Vaping and Smoking May Worsen Coronavirus Symptoms - EcoWatch ›