'The Business Community is in Agreement: We Need a Price on Carbon'

Chris Williams
November 18, 2010 | 7 Comments

Last month, Green Light Distrikt Boston held our third Cleantech Kingpins speakers series, where we gather local experts to answer a single question facing our industry. The first speaker, Mitch Tyson came up and gave a blunt, fiery and amazing speech - see the full video at the bottom of the post - that solidly, unequivocally stated that the business community is in complete agreement with each other, we need a price on carbon.

While some in the public see a price on carbon as some sort of tax, our business leaders see it as an opportunity to unleash huge amounts of innovation, job creation, and exports that can fuel our country. It's all about how you frame the issue.

Mitch Tyson is the former CEO and current Chairmen of Advanced Electron Beams and Co-Founder of the New England Clean Energy Council, is a member of the Progressive Business Leaders Network, and heads the energy council of the Mass High Tech. Mitch is a clear cleantech leaders, both in the region and the country.

All the presenter were asked to answer two questions

Why is the US not investing enough in cleantech?
What are 3 specific things we need to do to reverse this trend?

Everyone loved the speech and Mitch has some amazing answer to the two questions posed to him that are summarized below.

Why is the US not investing enough in cleantech?

"Wrong market signals, energy is too cheap. Why? Because we have no energy policy. Why? Because we're addicted to cheap fuels and our politicians have no courage"
"The business and environmental community are in sync, we need a price on carbon."
"We need to price energy correctly and incorporate its externalities so that it reflects the cost of climate disruption, oil spills and national security so we'd have more investment and also need to make the prices predictable."
"China and Europe get it. They have the right price, they regulate it, they subsidize it, they require it."
"Most frustrating, is that we have the people and technology, we have the funds, culture and companies but without the write pricing signals it won't work."

What are three things we must to do to reverse this trend?

"Make it personal. Look at it and address it in our own lives. Both in how we live and WHERE we work. So the companies address the issues, as well. All companies are cleantech companies."
"Engage politically. The business community gets it and they need to speak louder about the importance of this for our economy and our future. We need to support the candidates that GET IT and have the courage to do it. Activate the public. We need a political movement in this country that understand sustainability and get its. If you combine the public and business community, you'll have some power and there's no way for the politicans to ignore us."
"We need to be patience, persistent, and committed. This is a long term problem and it won't be fixed overnight. We need to speak for the voice of the future and utilize the 'grandfather test'. Duke Energy's CEO is committed to be zero carbon by 2050 because of the 'grandfather test' because he can't look his grandchildren in the face and say he ran the dirtiest company in the world and never did anything about it.

Here's Mitch Tyson's Full 11 Minute Piece Presentation:

The original post was first published on Green Light Distrikt

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

7 Comments

pierre vincent
December 15, 2010

Paul Tousignant, fossil energy prices are presently being manipulated to keep them artificially low. An easy & quick google on the subject would educate you further on this.
Use of phrases like "what a load of crap" make you look belligerent and reduce, if not eliminate, your credibility and any goodwill that may be attributed to your posts.

Upali Wickramasinghe
November 21, 2010

The US was known as the "food basket of the world". I believe your PL 480 was based on that premise.Today you are no longer in that position.
Forget prices on carbon. Produce food and finance the tropical countries to produce biofuels,.That belt can produce all the energy the world need and more.

Douglas Prince
November 19, 2010

Boyohboy, Paul. You really stuck your foot in that one. Energy is priced correctly? Supply and Demand of a Free Society? Wow. You must be smoking some of Phil's stuff.
I prefer not getting into politics on these boards, since the emphasis is on RE and its kin. And I really have nothing to say about the subsidy question, since others here are well aware of the lopsided policies this "supply and demand" country and I'm sure will be doing their best to educate you on the subject. Obviously you're not up on the recents stats regarding energy subsidies or you wouldn't have made such a patently bad statement.
As for the politics of American life, just point the way and I'll gladly joust with you over that matter.

Matthew Reardon
November 19, 2010

Yes, sorry Paul, any subsidies, tax breaks, etc. that are currently being considered pale in comparison to the huge level of subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars for these established industries vs. millions of dollars for new start-up, 21st century renewable energy companies that need a little help to get up and running...keep in mind that it's still far less help than tradition energy companies receive standard.

If you want to make the subsidies argument and really want energy priced correctly then let's try ending all of the subsidies or at least making them 1 for 1 and then see which technologies come out on top. However, we must keep in mind and judge environmental destruction as a consideration in who wins and loses.

Phil Manke
November 19, 2010

My household electrical utility has the antiquated pricing policies in place that still reward larger consumers with lower prices per KWH, thus encouraging use. The same thing happens with natural gas. The mega consumers in WI get such a cheap price on gas that they scoff at solar energy, even distributed thermal for heating, because gas can do it cheaper. This is gas that is piped in from Canada. Electric power companies have a mandate to use coal as the primary fuel source with gas as the backup, simply because coal is cheaper. If solar and wind were the primary, gas could be the backup and much less carbon into the atmosphere would be the result, but that would raise natural gas prices for other uses.

If carbon taxes were used solely to offset solar energy introduction costs, thermal and electric, production per watts produced, the solar products would be rolling off the shelves and into use across our children's land, all without additional government funding. 501-C3's structure the auction boards of selling credits and buying REC's. Most plaudits of the carbon cost plans fail to emphasize the potential credit side of this equation. It is the big plus in transforming our energy infrastructure.

Chris Williams
November 19, 2010

Robert,

I don't think most people will see an RPS as a tax, much like they don't see outlawing child labor or many other labor regulations as a tax. It's just the right thing to do.

I think the RPS is more like a tax credit, like we all love - don't you? - that the government is using to spur investment in a new industry. And it's working. The Massachusetts solar industry will grow 30% per year for the next 10 years with 100ks more in other parts of the country: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/strong-u.s.-solar-industry-growth-for-first-half-of-2010/

Paul,

Thanks for your comment. The reality is that energy IS NOT priced correctly. The federal government subsidies coal plants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-nilles/stop-government-funding-o_b_504325.html)

Nuclear power is also heavily subsidized. NO private market insurer will back a plant and thus the government must do so. This means, without the government no nuke plants would exist. If you can find data that state the opposite, please let me know.

Also, the government heavily regulates utilities and manipulates what they can charge for power. For example, in Massachusetts the government de-couple energy use from price, thus the more power utilities deliver they can charge less for it (http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeapressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Eoeea&b=pressrelease&f=080716_pr_decoupling&csid=Eoeea)

Do you think that is fair pricing?

Again, thanks for the time and energy you took into placing a comment. I look forward to any supporting documentation that have the says the government doesn't currently subsidize or manipulate the cost of energy.

paul tousignant
November 19, 2010

What a load of crap.
The business community is NOT in agreement that energy prices need to be manipulated to artificially high rates.
Energy IS priced correctly - it is a supply-and-demand function of a free society. If you want socialism or communism, go to a country that has it.
For renewables to replace fossil fuels, they have to become competitive without damaging the economy with TAXES promoted by Mr. Tyson.
"It's all about how you frame the issue" - yep, it's the spin you put on it, trying to convince people that crap is good because it is fertilizer.