Cato Institute on Energy & Oil

Sub-sections under Energy & Oil:
• Energy
• Global Warming
• Pollution
• Other issues under Energy & Oil

Carbon tax instead of Green New Deal

The Green New Deal would likely cost upwards of $6.6 trillion per year. The federal government should look for cheaper ways to address problems like climate change. Instead of the Green New Deal, the federal government could adopt a revenue-?neutral carbon tax to decrease emissions without exacerbating the fiscal imbalance. Economists from across the political spectrum support carbon taxation as the most cost-?effective way to address climate change. And a carbon tax would be most effective if uniformly adopted by other countries, too.

Opportunity cost and risk cost of nuclear overwhelm savings

This raises the opportunity and risk costs of nuclear, making it unattractive to investors. Capital-intensive power facilities take longer to build, which means that investors have to defer returns for longer than if they had invested elsewhere.

But the final nail in the coffin for the industry would be if the federal cap on the liability that nuclear power plant owners face in case of accidents (the Price-Anderson Act) were to be lifted.

Internalizing greenhouse gas cost means $2/ton carbon tax

Conservatives project nuclear power as the solution to greenhouse gas emissions. But they should resist that argument. If we slapped a carbon tax on the economy to "internalize" the costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions- the ideal way to address emissions if we find such policies necessary--then the "right" carbon tax would likely be about $2 per ton of emissions. That's not enough to make nuclear energy competitive against coal or natural gas according to calculations performed by the Electric Power Research Institute. In any case, if nuclear offers a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it should have to prove it by competing against alternatives in some future carbon-constrained market.

Oil and gas production isn't damaging, even OCS and ANWR

The evidence is overwhelming that oil and gas production is one of the least environmentally damaging ways to get energy. The hysterical attacks against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are little but recycled attacks launched three decades ago against development at nearby Prudhoe Bay. However, environmental impacts there have been minimal. For instance, there were about 5,000 caribou on the North Slope of Alaska when drilling began there. Today, there are 23,000. Offshore oil development and drilling in the lower 48 states--including, as The New York Times recently reported, in wildlife refuges--involves even fewer problems.

Close Dept. of Transportation; repeal federal gas tax

The original rational for the DOT was to build an interstate highway system. That was a legitimate federal function, since all citizens benefit from a coordinated network of highways. The interstate was completed 10 years ago. The vast majority is spent on local roads and urban mass transit systems [should be done on local level].

Wind power is not competitive; stop funding it

It is erroneous to conclude that if wind is not competitive now, it soon will be. Wind is competing against improving technologies and the increasing abundance of natural resources.

Eliminate federal energy R&D expenditures

Energy production by market forces not government planners

Predictions of imminent doom don’t come true

Measured warming is recovery from previous cooling

Nuclear cleanup standards are unachievable and costly

Nuclear weapons cleanup programs assumed by the NNWA should be renegotiated to reflect prioritization of containment and neutralization of risk rather than removal and return sites to pristine conditions. In fact, most of the cost associated with DOE cleanups stems from the fact that an attempt is being made to ensure that future residential use would pose no risk whatsoever.