This entry was posted on 2/21/2007 10:57 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
An Associated Press article published yesterday described how the CEOs of several global corporations called for "prompt, decisive action on climate change....." Good news.....it's movement in the right direction.
The problem: "The business leaders hoped that a permanent plan could be in place by 2012." This group, the Global Roundtable on Climate Change, was created in 2004.
Hoping that a plan is in place in 5-years is turtle-like. Let's have federal legislation introduced, reconciled, and signed into law by 2010 that will reduce income taxes and raise taxes on non-renewable energy. Who's leading? Not the Global Roundtable on Climate Change.....yet.
7/27/2007 6:50 AMMark Jeantheau wrote:
On the face of it, it seems like a good thing that corporations are starting to admit they have to do something about global warming. But don't assume that means we're finally on the verge of solving the problem.
Most of what's happening right now is just talk, and talk is cheap. Further, it's clear that companies are starting to think hard about how to "monetize" the solutions to global warming. They profited handsomely on the way to helping create the problem, and they will not be bashful about attempting to do so on the way to the solution. While "market efficiencies" can work well to solve environmental problems, but only if the rules of the game are set right, and that rarely happens.
A carbon "cap and trade" approach is the go-to solution right now, but we're already seeing dubious schemes becoming part of this. As corporations think harder about how to get into the game, you can bet they will attempt to stack the rules to benefit their bottom lines---after all, maximizing profit is the credo we've allowed them to hold high above all others---with actually solving the problem as a secondary consideration.
Shifting taxes from labor to BTUs is a better way to go, but even there the rules will have to be set right, and the Gucci-loafered lobbyists will be out in force during the process. The active political participation of informed citizens will be required if there is any hope of a good outcome.
For more general info on the "ruling power" that corporations have amassed in the last century, read David Korten's book 'When Corporations Rule the World'...
"Shifting taxes from labor to BTUs is a better way to go, ..."
This is misunderstanding the problem, and the mistake Al Gore made years ago. ENERGY (BTU's) are not the problem, GHG is. A tax on energy (BTU's or calories) would be stupid. It would apply to wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear. Pay more tax when the wind blows your turbine or shines on your roof collector? Of course not.
So it is assumed that politically popular forms of energy would be "exempt BTU's". They would even be called "renewable", even if they mined the soil rather than the earth (biofuels), or shut them selves off after a few decades or centuries like hydro or geothermal.
8/9/2007 9:29 AMMark Jeantheau wrote:
Actually, I agree, a tax shift from income to greenhouse gases---or any other form of pollution---works pretty well.
I should have clarified (as Paul has stated often) that the initial BTU tax should exempt non-GHG energy generation like wind, wave, microhydro, and solar. I recognize that your solution sidesteps that problem in the first place, but it lets nuclear mostly off the hook. Nuclear is decent (though not perfect) in terms of GHGs but, for other reasons, we should discourage it.
One thing to be said about ALL forms of energy generation is that there are associated resource and environmental costs, first with generation but also with the activities made possibly through energy use. Even with wind, wave, and solar! So, to some extent, once we get rid of the dirty energy sources, we shouldn't necessarily assume that all of our energy-related environmental problems go away and we can just keep on the exponential curve of population growth and economic growth. We have to reach a point of stasis and balance. Reply to this
"I should have clarified (as Paul has stated often) that the initial BTU tax should exempt non-GHG energy generation like wind, wave, microhydro, and solar. I recognize that your solution sidesteps that problem in the first place, but it lets nuclear mostly off the hook. Nuclear is decent (though not perfect) in terms of GHGs but, for other reasons, we should discourage it."
No energy source is "perfect" as you say. So why exempt any?
The result is to slant the tax code to favor the effective lobbyists.
Why is corn ethanol favored as "renewable" when it is made by mining and depleting topsoil? Why is breeder nuclear not "renewable" even though it produces more fuel than it consumes, by converting non-fissionable isotopes into nuclear fuel?
Answers (in order): because the Iowa caucus are early and so have an exaggerated importance, and many people fear the N word. Reply to this
Simply put, we need higher taxes on energy sources that cause big problems and we should exempt those energy sources that don't. Nuclear power falls into the former category for these reasons.
So we're not paying more taxes overall, income taxes should be lowered an equivalent amount.
" I recognize that your solution sidesteps that problem in the first place, but it lets nuclear mostly off the hook."
Paul says:
"Simply put, we need higher taxes on energy sources that cause big problems and we should exempt those energy sources that don't."
Hi,
So you both agree that energy decisions should not be made by the market with a tax on the source of the climate problem (GHG), but rather by politicians and lobbies. Let them decide what "big problems" are and who to "let off the hook".
I say let the market decide, after the magnitude of the GHG associated with each energy source is assigned by SCIENTISTS, not politicians. Ask scientists to estimate the GHG released by coal and natural gas and biofuels (to include the N2O in growing them) AND the manufacture and placement of wind turbines and solar collectors. And level a tax accordingly.
As a PS, did you see the recent Daily Show item about the opposition to placing a wind farm in the Atlantic Ocean near Cape Cod? They ran a film of Ted Kennedy standing up to BIG WIND's plan to spoil their view, because he supports the "little people", and he promised to block the wind farm.
It ended with their reporter chasing away a kid who was flying a kite on the beach, and blocking the ocean view of the rich folks. Reply to this
I believe that the federal government should "change the rules", via a tax shift, similar to patent and anti-trust laws for the greater good of all. From above, "we need higher taxes on energy sources that cause big problems and we should exempt those energy sources that don't." The source of the 4 biggies is our use of energy and lack of energy policies to solve these 4 problems.
Our elected representatives should listen to scientists and constituents to make things better and solve problems.
Our problem is not just global warming.....there are three more biggies. Cutting greenhouse gases is great, but what about our dependence on foreign sources of energy? There is a "silver bullet" - tax shifting from income to energy.
I didn't see the recent Daily Show item - thanks for mentioning it. Development and energy sources have trade-offs. Personally, there's NO comparison between people being killed as a result of global warming or our dependence on foreign energy and a "spoiled" view. Odds are that none of the people on Cape Cod opposing "Big Wind" have family or friends in Iraq.
Paul
P.S. - I think wind farms are awesome looking and you can build some near me anytime. Sure beats the alternative......
