Roundtables | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Even if simplicity is the only criterion, cap-and-trade might still be the best bet

Gernot Wagner — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:47:18 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

Any system clearly needs to be well-designed. On that point, we all agree. The question then becomes whether a cap-and-trade system or a tax would allow for the best possible system to be put in place. We've already argued that a cap would be much more preferable on environmental grounds. So now we'll turn to simplicity.

Tough governmental decisions must be made if nuclear is to expand

Miles A. Pomper — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:32:24 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

As much as I appreciate Alan Hanson's support for my argument, I don't share his underlying assumption--or Stephen Goldberg's--that nuclear power is certain to undergo a rapid global expansion. Obviously, nuclear industry proponents would like this to be the case, but there are many impediments to nuclear energy's growth.

A carbon tax may look better when considering the current economic climate

Janet E. Milne — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:34:32 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

We seem to have fairly broad agreement that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs share similarities, and as David Weisbach and Ken Richards suggest, each is worth its salt only if it's well designed. And I assume we agree that price matters. Just through the market-driven increases in gas prices, Americans traveled 12.2 billion fewer vehicle miles in June than 12 months earlier, a 4.7 percent drop. As others have stated, a fundamental difference between carbon taxes and tradable allowances revolves around certainty of price versus certainty of quantity.

We must take responsibility for the entire nuclear fuel cycle

Jill Marie Parillo — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:11:29 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is very exciting: It's going to solve the energy crisis, end U.S. reliance on oil and the rogue states that sell it, and help developing nations meet their doubling energy demands. This is all possible, we're told, because the U.S. Energy Department, industry, and the national laboratories will develop new technologies, new policies, and new international regimes to facilitate the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel using proliferation-resistant technologies, all the while following nonproliferation codes of conduct.

Don't forget about the role of politics

Kenneth R. Richards — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:37:23 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

David Weisbach is absolutely correct: The specific design of either a tax or cap-and-trade program is far more important than the issue of which approach Congress adopts. Either approach, properly developed, can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And conversely, either approach, poorly designed, can lead to real trouble.

Using neuroscience technologies in court

Jonathan Moreno — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:26:23 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

The recent New York Times report that Indian courts have begun accepting a version of electroencephalograms (otherwise known as EEGs) as evidence of deception or the absence of deception speak to the urgency of these discussions and to the importance of this roundtable.

GNEP's true success--restarting the nuclear power debate

Alan Hanson — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:56:25 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

A valid criticism of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), at least as it was originally conceived, is that it focused too much on preferred technologies, without first obtaining an international or domestic consensus on the basis for their selection. Miles Pomper made an invaluable contribution to this discussion when he advised that we "focus on first principles, then technology." Let's take his advice and examine the principles.

It's all about design

David Weisbach — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:37:38 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

I generally agree with Janet Milne that a carbon tax--or even better, a tax on all greenhouse gases--is preferable to a cap-and-trade system. However, if we follow good design principles, either will be effective. The importance of good design outweighs the choice of instruments: A well-designed cap-and-trade system and a well-designed tax look and operate similarly, while a badly designed tax or permit system is a bad idea.

Positive spin on GNEP ignores dangerous aspects of partnership

Thomas B. Cochran — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:12:49 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Stephen Goldberg has been careful to focus his discussion on the least controversial aspects of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), providing fuel services to emerging nuclear energy countries. He ignores the more troubling aspects of the partnership--its reliance on fast neutron reactors and a closed fuel cycle and developing, demonstrating, and deploying advanced nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies and fast reactors for this purpose.

The case for cap-and-trade: There's certainty in the environmental outcome

Gernot Wagner — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:02:24 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

Cap and trade sometimes seems like the Rodney Dangerfield of environmental policies: It's popular with the masses (or in this case both presidential candidates, members of Congress, major environmental advocacy groups, and the private sector) but gets no respect from most academic economists and other high-minded policy wonks.

The limits of traditional arms control models

Christopher Green — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:54:19 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

Margaret Kosal made several interesting propositions in her last commentary. One sentence struck me as particularly important and may present an opportunity to integrate three orthogonal threads of this discussion that otherwise indicate a divergence in opinion. She wrote: "For those of us working with traditional international relations theories and theorists, these questions of emerging security impact are also prime opportunities to test previous models and illustrate the importance and potential of technical security studies."

The world needs a strong global nuclear economy

Stephen M. Goldberg — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:07:11 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Global population growth in combination with further industrial development will lead to a doubling of worldwide electricity consumption by 2030, according to the World Nuclear Association. Add an increasing shortage of fresh water and the increasing need for energy-intensive desalination plants, and nuclear energy offers significant opportunities to meet growing energy demands of a developing world. Because of this and other reasons, an expanding set of non-nuclear countries are considering deploying new nuclear power plants.

The case for carbon taxes: Simple is better

Janet E. Milne — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:08:52 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

In today's climate change debate, carbon taxes lurk as a sleeper option compared to the cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress. Carbon taxes aren't without their downsides, but they should receive more consideration despite the almost Pavlovian aversion to taxes.

Focus on first principles, then technology

Miles A. Pomper — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:49:55 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

The original goals of the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) were worthwhile--enabling the global expansion of nuclear energy while limiting the spread of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies.

Cognitive science research calls for new security initiatives

Margaret E. Kosal — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:41:43 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

My colleagues have provided much for me to respond to. I'll take up a few ideas: global cognitive science research and development, differentiating offensive from defensive research, and expanding the concept of technical security studies. The three overlap, and each deserves more in-depth consideration than I will present here.

Neurosecurity, a question of technology or cosmology?

Andreas Roepstorff — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:43:32 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

In his latest commentary on culture and the brain, Jonathan Moreno addresses a crucial issue. So far, this discussion has mainly focused on technological advances brought forward by the rapid development in the neurosciences. These developments are impressive and raise all sorts of hopes and concerns. But as pointed out in the recent National Research Council report and in this roundtable, the debate takes place very much before the fact.

Make GNEP a forum for discussion, not negotiation

Jill Marie Parillo — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:54:36 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Leonor Tomero provides a comprehensive look at the current state of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in her Bulletin Web-Edition series, "The Future of GNEP." She lays out the inherent proliferation risks of such initiatives, which aim to expand nuclear energy in a safe and secure manner worldwide, but end up legitimizing the commercial use of sensitive fuel-cycle technology.

Understanding neural functioning across cultures

Jonathan Moreno — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:12:25 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

I'd like to change the topic for a moment. What strikes me about the reaction to the National Research Council report ("Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies") in the past few days is the attention that is being paid to the intersection of neuroscience, conflict, and culture.

We should really worry about nuclear winter

Alan Robock — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:08:09 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

The greatest danger that humans pose to Earth isn't geoengineering, ozone depletion, or even global warming. Rather, it's the climatic consequences of nuclear war. As recent work by Brian Toon, Gera Stenchikov, Luke Oman, Rich Turco, Chuck Bardeen, and myself has shown, we now understand that the atmospheric effects of a nuclear war would last for at least a decade--more than proving the nuclear winter theory of the 1980s correct.

Military applications of neuroscience are unlikely from additional basic research alone

Christopher Green — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:57:45 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

I would like to reflect on the approaches taken by my colleagues, Jonathan Moreno and Margaret Kosal, in the beginning of this discussion. Specifically, they have addressed what they contend to be two important core "rate-limiters" in the future progress of neuroscience research that could have military application: funding and ethics. While I do not disagree with anything that Jonathan and Margaret say in principle, my view is that these two core issues make it clear that this discussion must become global.